Cate Gillon/Getty

Don't get between the British and their pints of beer. That's what the European Union has finally learned after giving in to Britian and allowing it to keep using pints—a non-metric unit of measurement—to dispense and sell beer.

Previously, the island country had been under an EU diktat to abandon pints and pounds, and instead sell goods in the metric system's liters and kilograms by 2010. Euroskeptic Brits have traditionally bristled at the idea of being pushed around by Eurocrats, which over the years has spurred the creation of many hilarious Euromyths. 

The issue of abandoning the beloved imperial system of measures, in particular, had been a deeply emotional issue. Grocer Steve Thoburn became Britain's "metric martyr" when he was convicted in 2001 for the ghastly crime of selling bananas by the pound.

In the end, it seems like the EU decided to throw in the towel and just "go along to get along." A spokeswoman for the European Commission said it wanted to "put a full stop on this issue." With the future of the new EU Treaty hanging in the balance, that's probably wise.

A Tamil-language newspaper in Malaysia has had its printing permit suspended for one month as punishment for publishing an image of Jesus that many Christians, as well as people of other faiths, found offensive.

The picture depicts Jesus holding a cigarette and what looks like a can of beer. The caption accompanying the image translates roughly as "If someone repents for his mistakes, then heaven awaits them." The picture appeared as part of the newspaper's regular "thoughts for the day" feature, which spotlights quotes from famous leaders and philosophers.

Last year, two Malaysian newspapers got shut down after publishing offensive cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed—the notorious ones that were the subject of protests from Nigeria to Indonesia. In the case of the Jesus image, some Malaysian Christians have demanded that the newspaper that published it, Makkal Osai, receive the same treatment.

At least one Malaysian Christian blogger, however, believes that shutting down civic discourse isn't consistent with the principle of WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?). I would add that at the very least, it isn't consistent with the principle of free speech, which requires us to defend the right of people to say things that offend us deeply.

... they don't even need to decide where on the page to put the Communist Party propaganda photos.

A few heads are probably rolling at China Daily this week. That's because the state-run paper ever-so-briefly deemed the 1989 incident at Tiananmen Square as a massacre on August 8. China Daily's Web site picked up a Reuters story about the 2008 Olympics, and for several hours, the newspaper's online, English-language readers learned that "[s]ecurity was tight around Tiananmen Square, where troops crushed pro-democracy demonstrations in 1989 with huge loss of life, as crowds gathered for the celebrations." Here's Google's cached version of the piece with the sentence (pictured above).

Twelve hours later, the sentence was gone.

(Hat tip: Far Eastern Economic Review's Travellers' Tales blog)

Back in 2001, when Beijing was bidding for the 2008 Olympics, Wang Wei, the head of the committee petitioning for the games, promised to give international media "complete freedom to report when they come to China." Premier Wen Jiabao repeated that pledge when he decreed that foreign reporters would be allowed to roam freely without interference by local police or propaganda officials between January 1, 2007 and October 17, 2008. It's now August 2007, and the Olympics are less than a year away. How well has China fulfilled its promises?

Not so well, according to a report just released by the Foreign Correspondents Club of China (FCCC). The FCCC surveyed 163 international journalists working in China to find out if they've experienced any kind of government interference while reporting. Forty percent of the respondents say they've been through anything from source intimidation, detention, and even violence since January 1, 2007.  Eleven correspondents say they've received official reprimands, particularly in regards to reporting on Tibet. A reporter for the German newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau was even harassed while doing a story on Mount Everest climbers. 

It's not all dire news, though. Forty-three percent of respondents say that the reporting environment has improved somewhat since China decided to lift travel restrictions. But 95 percent say that reporting conditions in China still do not meet international standards. In particular, they cite difficulties in reaching top government officials.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next several months, especially since China is coming under increasing scrutiny—not just for traditional international concerns like human rights abuses, but for business practices. With melamine found in pet food and hazardous traces of lead in toys, the international media is not about to let up on China anytime soon. And as New York Times reporter David Barboza can attest, even business journalists are being detained. Time for Chinese officials to step up and fulfill their promises. They may find that transparency is in their own interests, too. 

Twelve years ago, British journalist Nick Young moved to China and started an English-language publication that quickly became a must-read for Sinophiles everywhere. The China Development Brief reports on social, environmental, and civil society developments in the Middle Kingdom and has developed a loyal following of mostly businesspeople, academics, and diplomats. In 2001, CDB launched a sister publication in Chinese. It wasn't a direct translation of the English version, but included original materials providing information exchange for Chinese NGOs dedicated to development and poverty alleviation.

Alas, the newsletter is no more. A week ago, a dozen Chinese authorities paid a visit to CDB's Beijing offices. After three hours of interrogation, they ordered Young to stop publishing. As Young wrote in a statement issued Wednesday:

I, as editor of the English language edition of China Development Brief, am deemed guilty of conducting "unauthorized surveys" in contravention of the 1983 Statistics Law, and have been ordered to desist. I have since been interviewed by the police section responsible for supervising foreigners in China.

At first, the Chinese authorities allowed Young to keep publishing the English version. But on Wednesday, they shut it down too.

This is discouraging news for anyone concerned about press freedoms in China. Although CDB is not mass media—its website describes it as "deliberately specialist, targeting international readers whose job means they need to understand China"—this is still censorship. And it seems like a reversal of Beijing's new policy to lift many restrictions on foreign media in advance of next year's Olympics. I suppose the Chinese authorities could have claimed that CDB's Chinese version is not foreign media, since it's run by the Chinese (Young edits only the English edition) and published in their native language. But it's perverse to allow foreigners more rights than a country's own citizens. Evidently, the Chinese authorities agree. But instead of allowing CDB to publish in any language, they've decided to shut the whole enterprise down. Hopefully, if there's an international outcry, they'll reverse the decision.

HOWARD YANES/AFP

Today marks the 25th anniversary of the end of the 1982 Falklands conflict between Britain and Argentina. Perhaps by no coincidence at all, Russian newspapers splashed headlines today revealing that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is preparing to finalize a deal to buy as many as nine Russian submarines this month. The deal reportedly includes five 636-type Kilo-class subs and four 677E Amur subs. Both are advanced diesel subs, and 677 represents the latest generation of post-Cold War Russian technology, which has not yet even been delivered to Russia's own fleet.

The deal is just the latest in Chávez's push for rapid militarization. Flush with oil money, Chávez has spent $3.4 billion on Russian arms since 2005, including the purchase of 24 fighter planes, 35 helicopters, air defense capabilities, and 100,000 small arms.

Why does Chávez need all of this hardware? He says he needs it to defend against America's evil empire. But in a column today, syndicated military affairs writer Austin Bay suggests Chávez may be up to something more sinister:

[A]n expansionary ideology and explosive ego propel Chavez. He styles himself as the new Simon Bolivar, who will reunite the South American continent while cowing the United States and other imperialists. He also bills himself as the 21st century's Fidel Castro.

As Condi Rice says, Chávez "can't intimidate the United States in any fashion." But he may use his newly acquired military power to enforce land claims against Colombia, Guyana, and the most menacing of all global hyperpowers—the Netherlands. The Dutch still rule islands such as Aruba and Curacao located off Venezuela's Northern coast. But would Chávez really try to reclaim these territories? Bay thinks it out this way:

Chavez isn't stupid — he knows Argentina lost its Falklands gamble. But he also knows that Britain's Falkland victory was more of a "near thing" than many think. Argentine combat aircraft could just reach the Falklands, while Venezuelan fighters could easily strike the Antilles.

Frighteningly, the Netherlands has started stockpiling its islands with naval forces, F-16 fighter jets, helicopters, and an infantry battalion. All that remains to be seen is whether Chávez, once armed, will back his words with action.

THEO HEIMANN/AFP

Switzerland has just two small minarets. But two are more than enough for some members of the country's right-wing Swiss People's Party. They are collecting signatures to force a referendum that would ban the building of minarets. The problem isn't that minarets would be a large eyesore; a minaret that has been proposed by an ethnic Albanian in the small town of Langenthal would only be 5 meters (16.5 feet) high. The problem isn't loud calls to prayer; the country's two minarets are silent, as would also be the Langenthal one. No, the problem seems to be fear of change.

Oskar Freysinger, a member of parliament for the Swiss People's Party, says:

We don't have anything against Muslims. But we don't want minarets. The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it's a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over.

He doesn't have anything against Muslims? Yeah, right. And since when did minarets—the rough equivalent of a church steeple—become a symbol of "political and aggressive Islam"? Granted, concerns about extremist Islam are entirely legitimate. But banning minarets isn't going to stop radical Islam. In fact, isolating and angering a community is more likely to radicalize it.

Scott Barbour/Getty

In a move worthy of the world's most dastardly despots, President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev recently approved a constitutional amendment that abolishes term limits for presidents, allowing him to seek office again in 2012, when his current term expires. Considering he managed to pull in a highly questionable 91 percent of the vote in 2005, there's no cause to believe the autocratic leader will be going anywhere anytime soon.

In response, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack has called the legislation "a step in the right direction."  Wh-what?

Presumably, McCormack was speaking in reference to the other legislation packaged with the amendment, which serves to give the Kazakh Parliament greater power and autonomy. Though McCormack acknowledged that the reforms were perhaps not "exactly what we would have hoped," he maintained that "we're not going to impose it on them." The "it" is, of course, democracy, the imposition of which has proven difficult for the United States in recent years.

This retreat to realpolitik has little to do with any lessons learned in Iraq; rather, it is a reflection of the vital interest Washington perceives in a strong, stable Kazakhstan. It so happens that the former Soviet state will be one of the world's top 10 oil producers within the decade. More immediately, Kazakhstan is a vital link in U.S. and E.U. plans to bypass Russia in the export of oil from the Caspian Sea. Outraged, Nazarbayev's opponents have accused the United States of "valuing oil more than democracy." Sorry, friends—welcome to the real world.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

As Blake pointed out earlier today, the most surprising bit of last night's Republican debate was Gov. Mitt Romney's declaration that the United States should "double Guantanamo" and should routinely make use of what he calls "enhanced interrogation techniques."

After the debate last night, Romney expanded on that thought in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News. It is worth watching the video in order to understand Romney's precise thinking here. It appears to be this: The nature of the enemy determines the morality with which you fight.

[W]e're dealing with terrorist nations," Romney told Hannity. "They're not following any procedures of this nature."

So neither should we, was Romney's point. Hannity then asked Romney how far he would go in torturing suspected terrorists.

I don't think any president of the United States is wise to say here's how far I'll go," Romney responded. "I think you always keep that to yourself."

We'll take that as an "I don't know." And, apparently, Romney won't be engaging in a public debate about where that line should be, either:

We're not going to project the kind of line that represents torture or not torture."

One has to wonder whether Romney understands the fundamental nature of the war the United States is fighting. It is a war of ideas. You don't win that kind of war by sinking to the terrorists' level, or by forfeiting the principles that separate enlightened, modern society from the dark, desperate world of radical Islamists.

I also worry that Romney's remarks are further evidence of how profoudly lost the Republican party is today. On the stage last night was a leading candidate for the party's nomination, droning on endlessly about his deep and profound "respect for life" —and advocating torture in the same breath. The only thing more disappointing was the room full of party faithful who seemed to miss the irony.

If Rupert Murdoch is ultimately successful in his floundering bid to buy Dow Jones, parent company for the Wall Street Journal, it will be despite bitter opposition from the Journal's China desk. Greg Sargent got his paws on a memo that was sent from the newspaper's Pultizer-winning correspondents in the Middle Kingdom to key members of the Bancroft family that controls Dow Jones.

It's scathing:

News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch has a well-documented history of making editorial decisions in order to advance his business interests in China and, indeed, of sacrificing journalistic integrity to satisfy personal or political aims. [...]

In 2001, for example, our colleague Ian Johnson shared the Pulitzer for international reporting for his articles about the Chinese government’s sometimes brutal suppression of the Falun Gong spiritual movement.

Under Mr. Murdoch, these articles might never have seen the light of day.

More here from Johnson, who is presently a Nieman fellow at Harvard.

JUAN BARRETO/AFP

Thousands of Venezuelans staged a rally in Caracas in Saturday to protest against the closure of Radio Caracas Television. The demonstrators braved heavy security (and a counter rally staged by Chavez supporters) to object to President Hugo Chavez's decision not to renew the broadcasting license of Venezuela's oldest TV station, which expires on May 28. Chavez announced the decision in December, describing the station as "against the people, against the nation, against the dignity of the Republic." He was referring to the channel's decision to ignore the street protests that ended the abortive 2002 coup against Chavez, and to broadcast movies and cartoons instead. Critics of Chavez say he wants to gag the voice of the opposition, and send a warning to other media.

For Chavez to punish anyone for their "coupism" (as he calls it) is laughable. He himself first came to public attention as the leader of the disastrous 1992 coup against President Perez. Chavez was treated well then; he spent a few years in prison, and by 1998 was back on the streets exercising his democratic right to run for president. But having benefited from such rights, Chavez won't hesitate to do away with them now. Protests or no, he will scrap Radio Caracas Television, and make sure that anyone with access to the airwaves is singing a Chavista tune.

This protest demonstrated Chavez doesn't have full support of the Venezuelan people. His decision regarding Radio Caracas Television will show just how little he cares.

SAMANTHA SIN/AFP

For Thailand's "Council for Democratic Reform"—that is, the military junta that seized control of the country last September—no politics is good politics, it seems. Last week, the Thai government, no doubt nervous about widening opposition to military rule, banned Google's YouTube because of a video mocking King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The latest shoe to drop: Temporarily banning politics from Pantip.com, the country's top chat site, after it made the mistake of hosting chatter about the YouTube ban. Al Jazeera reports:

The site initially posted a notice saying that its political forum, known as the Rajdamnoen Room, was suspended at the ministry's request for "national security" reasons. The notice was later withdrawn. [...]

[O]n Monday, pantip.com urged members to post messages condemning Google for not removing the video clips that mocked the king.

More than 1,000 people had posted messages, including one that said Google's reaction had "really hurt the people of Thailand" and showed a lack of respect for the country's culture and traditions.

No doubt Pantip.com is hoping to avoid sharing the fate of the 45,000 other sites (most of them pornographic, but some political) that are reportedly blocked in Thailand. Ultimately, this all raises the question: If the Thai government intends to make good on its (shaky) promise to hold parliamentary elections in December, how is campaigning supposed to work in such a chilly media climate?

AFP/Getty Images

Mobile phone text messaging services will be blocked this weekend during a two day "tranquility period" ahead of Cambodia's local elections. The order was made at the request of the National Election Committee, which feared that voters would be inundated with political text messages from parties seeking their votes, "spoiling" the calm in the lead-up to the election. All three major phone companies in the country have agreed to carry out the ban. But the main opposition party has criticized the decision, arguing that it would curb constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

These local elections are ostensibly aimed at decentralizing government power and strengthening democracy, but analysts expect that they will only reinforce the central government and the longstanding leadership of Prime Minister Hun Sen. In the upcoming April 1 elections, there are twelve political parties fielding a total of 102,266 candidates. Cambodian elections have been characterized by violence and intimidation in the past. But the text messaging ban is puzzling.

At last count, about one out of every 14 Cambodians had mobile phones. Rural access is improving, but even so, cellphone users remain a small minority. So why the ban? Perhaps it's a way of the government flexing its muscles and demonstrating its control before the elections. Or maybe it's a way of irking opposition activists. Whatever the case, it's a bizarre example of authoritarian overreach.