Appeasing a regime of terror

Last updated at 09:28 25 June 2004


It was a shaming and humiliating spectacle: eight British sailors and marines blindfolded, demeaned and paraded for the cameras, in breach of the Geneva Convention.

But here's a strange thing: not a peep of complaint came from Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. Palmerston he ain't.

Instead, the man who could win Olympic honours for being Mr Blair's chief apologist over Iraq could hardly wait to tell the world that in spite of everything, the men had been well cared for by their Iranian captors. And not content with buttering up the Ayatollahs, he added that "our policy of engagement with the government of Iran... is the right approach".

Of course there may be more to this apparently innocent border violation than meets the eye. And it is true that blustering megaphone diplomacy would have been reckless when our servicemen were at risk. On this occasion, the Foreign Secretary may have been right to opt for a discreet approach.

That said, this miserable episode only serves to underline the fatuity of "positive engagement" with a regime that President Bush - rightly, for once - describes as part of the "axis of evil".

Iran not only funds terrorist groups such as Hamas, but encourages suicide bombings and is implacably hostile to the West. Yet Mr Straw spends an inordinate amount of his time trying to woo these sponsors of murder.

What has he got for his pains? Iran is still up to its neck in terrorism. It flouts its treaty obligations by trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And when Britain takes understandable alarm - at last - and sponsors a tough resolution on the issue through the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, it apparently seeks petty vengeance by seizing our servicemen.

The truth is, this fanatical regime interprets "positive engagement" as a sign of Western weakness. Even now it has ambitions to dominate southern Iraq, following the handover of power next week. Will Mr Straw be so appeasing then?

Big spenders

From the latest royal accounts come some tantalising glimpses of profligacy.

A third of a million pounds spent on air travel by Prince Andrew... three quarters of a million on a royal train used only 18 times last year... £40,000 for a rail journey from Cornwall to Scotland by Prince Charles... £3,600 for a short helicopter hop by Andrew from Berkshire to next-door Wiltshire... sometimes such spending is almost surreal.

Did under-employed Andrew really have to spend £3,000 of our money on a flight from London to Oxford, when he would have made the journey by car in 75 minutes? Why must he fly to golf courses?

And wasn't Charles tactless (to say the least) in using the royal train - at a cost of £15,000 - to attend a meeting on housing for the poor?

A Royal Family that was free of scandal and sleaze might - just might - be able to justify such privileged extravagance. Much revered though the Queen is, some members of the House of Windsor still have much to learn, if they are to earn the respect she enjoys.

Best of British

In an age when it has become the norm for our great companies to be gobbled up by Johnny Foreigner - and too few British entrepreneurs are prepared to put their money where their mouths are - it is heartwarming to see the Barclay brothers commit £700million of their own cash to secure that great British institution, the Daily Telegraph.

It would be churlish to opine that they may have spent a mite too much. We salute them and wish them good luck. God knows, they'll need it.

Most watched News videos