FROM the comfort of our armchairs, in a land where a tremor that mildly shakes a wardrobe is labelled an earthquake, most of us could, of course, organise the rescue response to possibly the most disastrous ever earthquake far better than world leaders and the hard-working agencies greatly experienced in responding to humanitarian catastrophes.

A touch of humility is required – a dash of consideration of the difficulties of organising relief for the stricken people of Haiti, in a country bereft of appropriate resources and expertise and with no government to speak of. Instant action on the scale demanded to cope with this overwhelming tragedy could hardly have been expected.

But consider this. Within a couple of days, the US had put in place an aircraft carrier with 19 helicopters. A hospital ship and other support vessels soon followed. Three thousand five hundred troops – a small army – were on hand. The US also took over and reopened the airport and led the way in putting up money. Its £61m may pale besides the billions pumped into the banks, but it just about equals the total donated by all other governments.

In disasters like this the world always looks first to the US. Far more so than to the United Nations, which, logically, should take the lead – financially and in practical terms – in all humanitarian missions.

As we all know, the US’ star as an international power is falling. Its trajectory might follow that of Britain in the 20th Century, during which we declined from the world’s greatest power to virtually an also-ran.

The US often gets a bad press. But how would the world fare with, say, China, in the driving seat? Its government has donated about £3m to the Haiti rescue – ahead of many industrial nations, including France and Germany, but far behind the US, which has given three times as much as its nearest rival – Britain.

Should China become the world’s superpower, would it throw that power about, as the US has? And if so, how would it throw it about? Would an interventionist China be better, or worse, for the world than the interventionist US?

These questions might seem a long way from the Haiti earthquake, and indeed they are. But in retrospect, say half a century down the line, the US head-and-shoulder leading role in the response to what might remain the world’s worst earthquake might seem a yardstick of its former power and glory.

ALASTAIR Campbell, Tony Blair’s former communications chief at No 10, quickly had second thoughts on his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, at which he backed Tony Blair’s insistence that the existence of weapons of mass destruction had been established “beyond doubt”.

In a written amendment he said: “Reading the bald words on the page gives the wrong impression of what I was saying in response to what I thought I was being asked.”

It doesn’t say much for Mr Campbell’s communication skills that he apparently understood neither the question put to him nor the import of his answer.

HAS the Isle of Man discovered the Holy Grail in combating crime? Dramatic reductions – 35 per cent in burglary, 25 per cent in assaults – have followed the opening of Europe’s first no-smoking jail.