52 Diplomats Condemn Middle East Policy

[lynx]

Doomed to failure in the Middle East

A letter from 52 former senior British diplomats to Tony Blair

Tuesday April 27, 2004
The Guardian

Dear Prime Minister,

We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the United States. Following the press conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.

The decision by the US, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "road map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the west and the Islamic and Arab worlds. The legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well established: President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were well understood and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved. But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the road map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.

Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood. Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.

This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.

The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region. However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the coalition is naive. This is the view of virtually all independent specialists on the region, both in Britain and in America. We are glad to note that you and the president have welcomed the proposals outlined by Lakhdar Brahimi. We must be ready to provide what support he requests, and to give authority to the UN to work with the Iraqis themselves, including those who are now actively resisting the occupation, to clear up the mess.

The military actions of the coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them. It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders. Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition. The Iraqis killed by coalition forces probably total 10-15,000 (it is a disgrace that the coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in Falluja alone is apparently several hundred including many civilian men, women and children. Phrases such as "We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice," apparently referring only to those who have died on the coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions these killings arouse.

We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.

Yours faithfully,

Sir Graham Boyce (ambassador to Egypt 1999-2001); Sir Terence Clark (ambassador to Iraq 1985-89); Francis Cornish (ambassador to Israel 1998-2001); Sir James Craig (ambassador to Saudi Arabia 1979-84); Ivor Lucas (ambassador to Syria 1982-84); Richard Muir (ambassador to Kuwait 1999-2002); Sir Crispin Tickell (British permanent representative to the UN 1987-90); Sir Harold (Hooky) Walker (ambassador to Iraq 1990-91), and 44 others

[Full list of signatories: Brian Barder; Paul Bergne; John Birch; David Blatherwick; Graham Boyce; Julian Bullard; Juliet Campbell; Bryan Cartledge; Terence Clark; David Colvin; Francis Cornish; James Craig; Brian Crowe; Basil Eastwood; Stephen Egerton; William Fullerton; Dick Fyjis-Walker; Marrack Goulding; John Graham; Andrew Green; Vic Henderson; Peter Hinchcliffe; Brian Hitch; Archie Lamb; David Logan; Christopher Long; Ivor Lucas; Ian McCluney; Maureen MacGlashan; Philip McLean; Christopher MacRae; Oliver Miles; Martin Morland; Keith Morris; Richard Muir; Alan Munro; Stephen Nash; Robin O'Neill; Andrew Palmer; Bill Quantrill; David Ratford; Tom Richardson; Andrew Stuart; David Tatham; Crispin Tickell; Derek Tonkin; Charles Treadwell; Hugh Tunnell; Jeremy Varcoe; Hooky Walker; Michael Weir; Alan White.]


Source (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,1204208,00.html)

These are people who REALLY understand what's going on in the Middle East, yet it seems likely that they were not consulted before the Iraq conflict, or if they were their comments were ignored.

It is unprecedented for such a group to publicly criticise the government, which surely shows how disturbed they feel by current and recent events. I cannot see how Tony Blair can continue if he fails to take at least some action in response. Perhaps David Blunkett will declare them all terrorists and have them locked up.

Edit: forgot to "quote" original document.

[Biggles]

JP

If I may be so bold,

Dear Tone,

The Arabs used to trust us. Thanks to you they now think we are total tossers!

signed

A load of people who actually know what they are talking about.

At least that is the gist of the matter.

[Rat Faced]

That list of names is impressive.

Even more impressive, in that they are from all parts of the political spectrum.

[hobbes]

Can someone put this into context for me? How many quite frankly disagreed with this letter and how many diplomats were there to choose from? It seems some terms date back to the 1970's.

Is this 52 out of 52 or 52/1000?

And what is their plan other than, "I don't like yours".

Criticism is "easy", putting forward a well thought out plan of your own is "constructive".

In the Middle East, predictions of failure are pretty much a sure bet.

[lynx]

Originally posted by hobbes@28 April 2004 - 01:53
Can someone put this into context for me? How many quite frankly disagreed with this letter and how many diplomats were there to choose from? It seems some terms date back to the 1970's.
Before the current occupiers of those positions (who can't make public comment) there are the most recent ambassadors to Egypt, Israel, Kuwait and Iraq. There is one (of those whose terms are detailed) who's term of office started in the 1970's (1979 to be precise).

Is this 52 out of 52 or 52/1000?I don't think the numbers (or ratio if you prefer) is particularly significant. The fact that so many from such different political backgrounds have got together is the overwhelming point.

And what is their plan other than, "I don't like yours".Would you expect them to voice concerns that everything is going well? Be realistic.

Criticism is "easy", putting forward a well thought out plan of your own is "constructive".Surely it was the job of the coalition governments to put forward a well thought out plan before embarking on this fiasco. It is a little difficult to put forward a constructive plan if no-one is even prepared to listen, but there are some suggestions as to what should be done. Perhaps you find the ideas unpalatable.

In the Middle East, predictions of failure are pretty much a sure bet.Maybe a good bet, but if you don't have a good plan it is a certainty.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

As Lynx has said, the political spectrum and the fact that they are all experienced ME ambassadors is the real point.

Whilst an ambassador to the Galapagos Islands might make pertinent points, it could be argued he doesn't know what he talking about. These people are the great and good of the Foreign Office with specific knowledge of the region spanning all poltical parties over the last 30+ years.

The strongest counter I have seen yet from the current establishment is that these people clearly went "native" during their stay in the ME and this has coloured their opinion. This point of view has generally caused much hilarity.

[hobbes]

Lynx,

They presented little to no alternative plan. We all know the situation is troublesome in Iraq and as ever in Israel, do we need some ex-diplomats to point to the obvious?

These guys haven't been able to accomplish anything permanent in the last 25 years, what makes me think they suddenly have a clue how to go about things?

It's almost like a bankrupt investor scoffing at your portfolio. These ambassadors have been real inspirations in futility.

Maybe Chirac should lead the rebuilding, the Arab world loves him. I think Saddam had a personal term of affection for him, if I am not mistaken.

Why could this letter not have been sent privately? This is simply a tactic to make poor Tony look worse. If they really wanted to help, they would have gone this route. Seems to me they just wanted to make a media splash and get back in the news.

I honestly don't give a crap, my gut reaction to the article was that it was a sensational way for a biased media source to sell more papers. Kind of like when people criticise Fox news, just a British version.

When I really want to help, I do it privately, after all, I am a diplomat .

[Biggles]

Hobbes

An open letter to one of the old heavyweight newspapers is something of a British tradition. It is not actually all that sensationalist. It is considered rather old school and dry by the general populace (a point JPF made in his own inimitable way). It is an accepted and honourable way for professionals to make a point about policy and direction in our rather meandering an archaic system of government.

[hobbes]

Many on the list have no relation to the Middle East and there is just a single woman is present. Given the range of countries listed, I imagine 52 is a very small number of the total number of diplomats.

Their accomplishments and experience in the Middle East leave me rather unimpressed.

Has anything changed in the Middle East in over 25 years. No. Who was in office, the above signed.

Do I support Tom Blair, George Bush, no.

I just find their letter rather useless, as I pointed out above. Seems like a "hey, remember me, Harold "Hooky" Walker former Iraq ambassador?"

If you are going to disrespect your leader in public, have a plan, if you can at all be bothered.

Anyway, take my comments as you will, I am only human, opened and I really can't get my pulse up over this.

[leftism]

Hobbes you have made no attempt to address the content of the letter, and have instead focused all your energies on rubbishing the authors. A typical politicians 'trick' to divert attention from the real issues.


Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They presented little to no alternative plan. [/b]

Does that automatically make their criticism invalid?


Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Maybe Chirac should lead the rebuilding, the Arab world loves him. I think Saddam had a personal term of affection for him, if I am not mistaken.[/b]

Relevance?


Originally posted by hobbes
Why could this letter not have been sent privately? This is simply a tactic to make poor Tony look worse. If they really wanted to help, they would have gone this route.

How do you know they have not sent a private letter? By definition you wouldn&#39;t know about it.

If you were a little more familiar with Tony Blair&#39;s style of government you would realise that a private letter from these guys wouldn&#39;t make a difference.


Originally posted by hobbes
Seems to me they just wanted to make a media splash and get back in the news.

Ambassadors and diplomats making a "media splash" and trying to get back in the news? Please... you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel with that. I don&#39;t know how you view your ambassadors in the US but in the UK they are not celebrities.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@
I honestly don&#39;t give a crap, my gut reaction to the article was that it was a sensational way for a biased media source to sell more papers. Kind of like when people criticise Fox news, just a British version.[/quote]

You genuinely think that a letter from a bunch of diplomats is a good way to sell newspapers to the masses? You call that "sensational"? Comparable to Fox News?? :blink: A little advice, do not pursue a career in the mass media, you wouldn&#39;t make a penny.

You know what I find really dissappointing Hobbes... I don&#39;t think you believe a word of what you&#39;ve just written. However, you have shattered the "fair and balanced" Hobbes portrait you&#39;ve been painting for a while now.

No &#39;fair and balanced&#39;, honest person of any political persuasion would respond to that letter with desperate smear tactics. I suspect such an individual would respond to the content. <_<

edit: <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Has anything changed in the Middle East in over 25 years. No. Who was in office, the above signed. [/quote]

Ambassadors and diplomats dictate foreign policy? I thought they did what the government of the day told them to do.. ah well, you live and learn.

[hobbes]

I was unimpressed. I am not for Bush nor Blair, what is my motivation, what is my agenda?

Content, please tell me where you found some?

That was the point, had it contained "content", then it might have been worth printing.

I noticed you didn&#39;t address any content either, you simply attacked me.

Did I say their criticism was invalid? No, but you said I did. I challenged that they were the wise oracles of Delphi that we should assume they should be. I actually stated that I don&#39;t support Bush or Blair, so I would like to hear some alternative plans.

As for Chirac, the Arabs love him. He must know something about how to deal with them. Everytime I make a joke should I add a smilie for you? :lol:

Where have I been "desperate"? I need an illustration of this. You must show how I have been "desperate". Otherwise, you are just lying.

Maybe it was when I scraped the bottom of the barrel. Did you major in emotive language and cliches in college?


Have I attacked any individual or have I simply stated that nothing has changed in the Middle East for quite some time. I&#39;m just unimpressed.

You have tackled no issues and your post was an attack on me, well done, I&#39;ve landed you on my deck. Quit flopping so I can apply the marinade.

Oh BTW, the point of the post was to convince the reader that knowledgable people are going against Blair and there are 52 of them. Certainly Tony should listen.

The "Otherside of the coin", not addressed. That is where I stepped in.

You are right, I am playing the "Devils Advocate" here, as I think things need to be changed, but why these people think that making this public announcement, which contains only a bare minimum of constructive input will really help, is beyond me. They use their prior positions as some magical trump cards, I am doubting they are as divine as the article wants you to think.

As for dictating foreign policy, isn&#39;t that what they are trying to do with the letter?

Again, I like the comments that I am not honest. It is just a ruse. Are you baffled by people who tell the truth and have no agenda to lie for. Am I like someone from another world to you? Look at my signature, what does that mean to you?

[leftism]

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Content, please tell me where you found some?

That was the point, had it contained "content", then it might have been worth printing.[/b]

As I suspected, you haven&#39;t read the letter. No one who had could say it was devoid of content regardless of their position on the subject matter. Another example of your "non-agenda"?


After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood.

There is more worth discussing.. but I will not waste the energy.


Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Did I say their criticism was invalid?[/b]

Well.. I would have thought labelling the lot of them as sensationalist publicity seekers who "just wanted to make a media splash and get back in the news." would amount to saying their criticism is invalid. More duplicity... naturally :)


Originally posted by hobbes
Where have I been "desperate"? I need an illustration of this. You must show how I have been "desperate". Otherwise, you are just lying.


Can&#39;t you read? The bits I quoted were the bits where you showed your desperation by resorting to smear tactics and ludicrous nonsensical accusations. I will quote them a second time in large red fonts if that&#39;ll help.


Originally posted by hobbes
You have tackled no issues and your post was an attack on me

Indeed. One cannot hold a debate with a duplicitous individual. A real debate requires honesty and integrity which, given your response to the letter, are not qualities you possess.

I would dispute whether I "attacked" you. I just highlighted the fact that you continuously claim to have no agenda and to be a fair judge of evidence based on it&#39;s merits. Your "critique" of the letter proves, quite convincingly, that this isn&#39;t the case. A glaring inconsistency in your "position".

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@

The "Otherside of the coin", not addressed. That is where I stepped in.
[/quote]

More duplicity :)

"The other side of the coin" would involve tackling the issues raised and pointing out the flaws in their position. "The other side of the coin" does not involve knee jerk reactions where you try to rubbish the authors on ludicrous grounds and consistently ignore the issues. I think the technical term for that is "political opportunistic bullshit".

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
As for dictating foreign policy, isn&#39;t that what they are trying to do with the letter?[/quote]

Not if one actually bothers to do more than skim the letter then go on the warpath.


we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.


I can&#39;t be bothered to get bogged down in this Vietnam style quagmire where you continue to refute the obvious. The facts speak for themselves.

1. You have not addressed the content of the letter, and contrary to your claim there is plenty.
2. You have instead embarked upon a smear campaign.
3. Having done this you&#39;re now trying to say this is how a reasonable non-biased non-agenda driven individual "Shows the other side of the coin" or "Plays devils advocate".

Every point you make that attempts to smear these individuals is absolute rubbish. There is no denying that, and as I previously stated..

"No &#39;fair and balanced&#39;, honest person of any political persuasion would respond to that letter with desperate smear tactics. I suspect such an individual would respond to the content."

[hobbes]

What is my agenda?

I am simply not going to jump on their wagon because they oppose Bush and Blair. Just because they are anti-Bush/ Blair doesn&#39;t mean I need to agree with them.

They need to impress me first and provide a clear vision. I see nothing but the barest of vagarities in the document I have fully read. I have no assurance that these people actually know what they are talking about.

Had I wanted to be desperate, I would have cited individual names, arrest records, drug rehab, and all that. All I did was ask for some concrete accomplishments.

You do nothing but lie and distort, you are dismissed from my world. No joke. You are either not very bright (doubtful), or you just enjoy distorting posts to draw a reaction (which makes you even more intolerable). Too many times I have attempted to clarify my posts when you "misunderstand" me. We all are irritated when people state that we said or meant something which is simply not true. How many times have I try to clarify, be more explicit, reach compromise, with no success. I actually feel stupid for trying now but I finally "get" it. My hopes that you would come from your bitter corner have been replaced by an admission to failure.

Have a good life Lefty, come to the beach sometime and enjoy some comraderie under a warm sun. :(

[lynx]

The current approach Image Resized
http://www.eilertech.com/photos/photo5/stick.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> ('http://www.eilertech.com/photos/photo5/stick.jpg')


Proposed approach [img]http://www.eslkidstuff.com/images/carrot.gif

Which would you prefer?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Biggles@28 April 2004 - 11:31
The strongest counter I have seen yet from the current establishment is that these people clearly went "native" during their stay in the ME and this has coloured their opinion. This point of view has generally caused much hilarity.
hmm... perhaps a test is in order? these diplomats should be made to answer a brief questionnaire to the tune of:


Which do you prefer?

[&nbsp; ] tea and football
[&nbsp; ] Allah and Arafat

if they choose tea, they prove themselves English through and through. or else they&#39;re actually Chinese.

[Rat Faced]

Diplomats dont dictate policy, they do what they are told...so they wouldnt have any "accomplishments" unless the Government instructed them to do something achievable... not something any Diplomats from the UK or the USA have managed in the ME... possibly as they&#39;ve been told to do the impossible?


The Government response of "Gone Native" is laughable.... unless such people as The Pope also have... There are an awful lot of people that have been saying the same thing, in both countries no doubt, for years.

Many havent even been to the ME to go native.... ;)

[vidcc]

source (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14210207%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=dubya%2dthe%2ddangerous-name_page.html)


DUBYA THE DANGEROUS May 5 2004


Now US diplomats sound alarm

From Anthony Harwood, US Editor in New York


MORE than 50 American ex-diplomats have told George Bush that his policies in the Middle East are dangerous.

Their letter to the US president echoes a similar one sent last week from 52 British former diplomats to Tony Blair.

The American retired officials told Dubya: "You have placed US diplomats, civilians and military doing their jobs overseas in an untenable and even dangerous position."

The open letter strongly criticises Mr Bush&#39;s support for Israeli leader Ariel Sharon and praises their British colleagues for calling on Britain to exert more influence over the United States.

They told Mr Bush: "Your unabashed support of Sharon&#39;s extra judicial assassinations, Israel&#39;s Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories and now your endorsement of Sharon&#39;s unilateral plans are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends." Israel has claimed it has to kill militants planning suicide attacks and is building the West Bank barrier for security.

Andrew Kilgore, who served as US ambassador to Qatar, said: "We thought American diplomats were as unhappy as British diplomats were over what the president did."

A spokesman for the American Educational Trust, which counts some of the diplomats among its members, said: "Early responses are staggering. Signatories are united by their belief that the US government is heading toward great danger."

Last week, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw issued a sharp warning against attempts to undermine Britain&#39;s relationship with the United States in the wake of the British diplomats&#39; letter.





Our chaps are at it now

[Rat Faced]

Was this (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/27WEB-TNAT.html?ex=1083902400&en=d858ae1e7351b341&ei=5070) guy one of them?

Just need to find the other 49 now :rolleyes:

[Rat Faced]

The full text of a letter from some 50 retired US diplomats urging President Bush to reverse his Middle East policy.

Dear Mr President:

We former US diplomats applaud our 52 British colleagues who recently sent a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair criticising his Middle East policy and calling on Britain to exert more influence over the United States.

As retired foreign service officers we care deeply about our nation&#39;s foreign policy and US credibility in the world.

We also are deeply concerned by your April 14 endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon&#39;s unilateral plan to reject the rights of three million Palestinians, to deny the right of refugees to return to their homeland, and to retain five large illegal settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.

This plan defies UN Security Council resolutions calling for Israel&#39;s return of occupied territories.

It ignores international laws declaring Israeli settlements illegal.

It flouts UN Resolution 194, passed in 1948, which affirms the right of refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation for the loss of their property and assistance in resettling in a host country should they choose to do so.

And it undermines the Road Map for peace drawn up by the Quartet, including the US. Finally, it reverses longstanding American policy in the Middle East.

Your meeting with Sharon followed a series of intensive negotiating sessions between Israelis and Americans, but which left out Palestinians.

In fact, you and Prime Minister Sharon consistently have excluded Palestinians from peace negotiations.

Former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo voiced the overwhelming reaction of people around the world when he said: "I believe President Bush declared the death of the peace process today".

By closing the door to negotiations with Palestinians and the possibility of a Palestinian state, you have proved that the United States is not an even-handed peace partner.

You have placed US diplomats, civilians and military doing their jobs overseas in an untenable and even dangerous position.

Your unqualified support of Sharon&#39;s extra-judicial assassinations, Israel&#39;s Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon&#39;s unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends.

It is not too late to reassert American principles of justice and fairness in our relations with all the peoples of the Middle East.

Support negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, with the United States serving as a truly honest broker.

A return to the time-honored American tradition of fairness will reverse the present tide of ill will in Europe and the Middle East - even in Iraq.

Because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core of the problems in the Middle East, the entire region - and the world - will rejoice along with Israelis and Palestinians when the killing stops and peace is attained.

Sincerely,

Andrew I Killgore, Ambassador to Qatar, 1977-1980
Richard H Curtiss, former chief inspector, US Information Agency
Colbert C Held, Retired FSO and author
Thomas J Carolan, Counsel General Istanbul, &#39;88-&#39;92
C Edward Bernier, Counselor of Embassy, Information and Culture, Islamabad, Pakistan
Donald A Kruse, American Consul in Jerusalem
Ambassador Edward L Peck, former Chief of Mission in Iraq and Mauritania
John Powell, Admin Counselor in Beirut, &#39;75-&#39;76
John Gunther Dean, last position held US Ambassador to India
Greg Thielmann, Director, Office for Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, Bureau of Intelligence and Research
James Akins, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Talcott Seeyle, Ambassador to Syria
Eugene Bird, Counselor of Embassy in Saudi Arabia
Richard H Nolte, Ambassador to Egypt
Ray Close, Chief of Station Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 1971-1979
Shirl McArthur, Commercial Attache, Bangkok


My thanks to Scroff @ anywhichway



Off Topic, but i thought it was funny:

http://www.buzzflash.com/burns/04/04/images/16oped_pie_chart.gif