Having survived an assassination attempt on her first day and facing physical and political threats from all sides, Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan has ended in tragedy and sadly an inevitable assassination. With such a pressing Islamist threat, the Zia old guard still flexing their influence, and great uncertainty over how much control Musharraf actually has, this conclusion to Bhutto's career and undoubtedly the start of a new violent chapter for Pakistan is not surprising. Bhutto was without doubt a corrupt and feudal leader who had been unable to state a clear vision for the future since her return, but she was probably the second lesser of the four evils.
Two conclusions are clear from this assassination in Rawalpindi. Musharraf has no control over internal security and his state of emergency tactic of arresting moderates has clearly backfired. Second the Islamists are clearly in the ascendancy, they have penetrated internal state security apparatus with the capability to attack any politician regardless of their security detail. There is also the more alarming prospect of a return to the Zia-Islamist alliance of the 1980s. Zia ordered the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977. Rawalpindi, a garrison town, might be considered one of the more secure Pakistani cities but it's military and ISI presence may not be a coincidence. Rawalpindi has also witnessed several bomb attacks over the last few years, including an assassination attempt on Musharraf in December 2003 and recent suicide attacks against the military.
Where does this leave Pakistan? Firstly Musharraf's response will be closely monitored, especially those who accuse him of collusion in this attack. Then the elections are due to occur early next year, can any candidate feel safe when campaigning, will Islamists escalate their campaign emboldened by this success, will elections actually take place? Musharraf has evaporating support in Washington, Sharif has failed to convince, meanwhile America's ultimate concern - Al Qaeda and neo-Taliban forces along the Afghanistan border - can only feel stronger after this assassination. Bhutto was unequivocal in her support for a US onslaught in the tribal areas if elected. The Islamist violence that erupted after the storming of the Red Mosque has continued with relentless ferocity and Pakistan is now close to if not over the edge.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Tea with the enemy
In the secretive, delicate and ruthless covert arena, hard-nosed negotiations with adversaries occur regularly. Official admittance is often rare though, as it undermines public political statements, puts moderates (those usually doing the talking) at risk from extremists, and is often far from productive. Just as British intelligence negotiated with Irish republicans prior to an official agreement, Israelis liaised with Fatah, and the CIA have cultivated contacts with Sunni insurgents. Today's reports of MI6 meetings with the Taliban is not news therefore, not in terms of intelligence services historical activities nor in light of the current conflict in Afghanistan. This story has moved to the political level as British domestic opposition accuse Gordon Brown of backtracking on a previous promise not to negotiate with the Taliban; and Afghan authorities, having just expelled two diplomats, are looking but failing to convince the world that progress is being made. American commanders have also expressed dissatisfaction with the very idea of negotiations with an extremist movement that harboured Al-Qaeda militants - vital to the group's rise in the 1990s.
MI6, the British army, the UN and various other players in Afghanistan's latest great but not very gratifying game is without an end in sight. A war that appeared concluded in early 2002 has come back with a vengeance this year. MI6 are merely continuing a long held role and manipulating long held assets. SIS played an auxiliary role during the Afghan war against the Soviets, had a deep and valuable relationship with Ahmed Shah Massoud in the following decade, and were at the forefront of the UK-US invasion in October 2001. Neither SIS nor the British government have verified these recent reports and will not do so.
Call it pragmatism or the product of an increasingly intractable conflict, as up to 10,000 Taliban insurgents in a six year plus war are forcing alternative and radical solutions. Splitting the Taliban between an acceptable indigenous faction and the hard line foreign mixed cadre could be the strategy behind MI6's liaison. The increasing foreign influence adds urgency to any possible deal with indigenous militias. The rise of the Pakistani neo-Taliban across the border - allied closely to the Afghan Taliban leadership - has narrowed options further. Suddenly NATO - despite the recent re-capture of Musa Qala - is in a position of weakness as the threat has been trebled by expanding militancy on either side.
MI6, the British army, the UN and various other players in Afghanistan's latest great but not very gratifying game is without an end in sight. A war that appeared concluded in early 2002 has come back with a vengeance this year. MI6 are merely continuing a long held role and manipulating long held assets. SIS played an auxiliary role during the Afghan war against the Soviets, had a deep and valuable relationship with Ahmed Shah Massoud in the following decade, and were at the forefront of the UK-US invasion in October 2001. Neither SIS nor the British government have verified these recent reports and will not do so.
Call it pragmatism or the product of an increasingly intractable conflict, as up to 10,000 Taliban insurgents in a six year plus war are forcing alternative and radical solutions. Splitting the Taliban between an acceptable indigenous faction and the hard line foreign mixed cadre could be the strategy behind MI6's liaison. The increasing foreign influence adds urgency to any possible deal with indigenous militias. The rise of the Pakistani neo-Taliban across the border - allied closely to the Afghan Taliban leadership - has narrowed options further. Suddenly NATO - despite the recent re-capture of Musa Qala - is in a position of weakness as the threat has been trebled by expanding militancy on either side.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Iranian estimate or guesstimate..
The drum is back in the cupboard for the time being. The drum beat of war that has become louder and faster for the last year has been knocked out of its stride. This week's National Intelligence Assessment (NIE) downplays the threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme: "in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program"; as of June 2007 the intelligence agencies "assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program". Iran still poses a threat, being "technically capable of producing
and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015," with "the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so." The pressure seems to have abated and this volte-face appears to be an apparent triumph for the diplomatic voices of Britain and Europe. Russia and China will use this revision as a justification for their caution and resist stricter sanctions. The hawks in the Bush administration have had their march to Tehran cancelled, temporarily, but will there be a rapprochement with the long standing foe? On the evidence of today's White House conference, this seems unlikely. Iran continues to antagonise America (and Israel) in a variety of ways. Any grand bargain now still implies acceptance of Iran's behaviour and this seems inconceivable given the rhetoric of recent months. A clearer understanding of the Bush administrations animosity and intransigence towards Iran is provided by the fact that this estimate was drafted one year previous. Verbal assaults have been used to discourage Iranian meddling in Iraq, maintain Bush's "war president" status, and scare Democrats from any dovish position, in the knowledge that the threat isn't that great. The intelligence agencies have shown their hand early to avoid a repeat of the Iraq war build up - where the inevitability of war shaped intelligence, not the reverse. A collision course between Iran and Bush is still a route, but the CIA, NSA or anyone of the other 14 agencies are not providing the map this time. When neocons like Robert Kagan - an intellectual architect of the Iraq war - advise the administration to talk to Iran, the game seems up, a new era of peace will surely be upon us! Unfortunately we have two radical unpredictable and ignorant leaders on either side, who are more than capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of an acceptable score draw.
Iran's leadership will react with predictable self-satisfaction. A role exists for the Gulf Arab states - having concluded the recent Gulf Co-operation Council meeting in Qatar - facing a diminished Iranian threat, as a possible bridge between the Great Satan and the Mad Mullahs. The Democrats are refocusing the domestic debate with diplomacy as the sole elixir, putting to bed neoconservative militarism. But Bush probably would have gone to war against Iraq with or without credible intel, and Iran - as the estimate does state - still has the capability to go nuclear, so Ayatollahs lounging on Texan ranches or George and Laura admiring the mosques of Qom are far off visions at the moment I'm afraid.
and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015," with "the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so." The pressure seems to have abated and this volte-face appears to be an apparent triumph for the diplomatic voices of Britain and Europe. Russia and China will use this revision as a justification for their caution and resist stricter sanctions. The hawks in the Bush administration have had their march to Tehran cancelled, temporarily, but will there be a rapprochement with the long standing foe? On the evidence of today's White House conference, this seems unlikely. Iran continues to antagonise America (and Israel) in a variety of ways. Any grand bargain now still implies acceptance of Iran's behaviour and this seems inconceivable given the rhetoric of recent months. A clearer understanding of the Bush administrations animosity and intransigence towards Iran is provided by the fact that this estimate was drafted one year previous. Verbal assaults have been used to discourage Iranian meddling in Iraq, maintain Bush's "war president" status, and scare Democrats from any dovish position, in the knowledge that the threat isn't that great. The intelligence agencies have shown their hand early to avoid a repeat of the Iraq war build up - where the inevitability of war shaped intelligence, not the reverse. A collision course between Iran and Bush is still a route, but the CIA, NSA or anyone of the other 14 agencies are not providing the map this time. When neocons like Robert Kagan - an intellectual architect of the Iraq war - advise the administration to talk to Iran, the game seems up, a new era of peace will surely be upon us! Unfortunately we have two radical unpredictable and ignorant leaders on either side, who are more than capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of an acceptable score draw.
Iran's leadership will react with predictable self-satisfaction. A role exists for the Gulf Arab states - having concluded the recent Gulf Co-operation Council meeting in Qatar - facing a diminished Iranian threat, as a possible bridge between the Great Satan and the Mad Mullahs. The Democrats are refocusing the domestic debate with diplomacy as the sole elixir, putting to bed neoconservative militarism. But Bush probably would have gone to war against Iraq with or without credible intel, and Iran - as the estimate does state - still has the capability to go nuclear, so Ayatollahs lounging on Texan ranches or George and Laura admiring the mosques of Qom are far off visions at the moment I'm afraid.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Green Dragons' Den....
There was no Theo Pathitis wit, Duncan Bannatyne canniness or a Peter Jones put-down and only one wacky entrepreneur, rather serious products for a real global problem with an appropriately informed panel. The Green Dragons' Den - Dragons' Lair to avoid infringing IPR - was no less entertaining and certainly more inspiring, with sustainable products being pitched to a panel mixed with venture capitalists, academics and journos. With only seven minutes to convince, there was little opportunity to expand on the better products, but was a saviour for some badly thought out rambles that made up the numbers. The prize on offer - not a multimillionaire's cash or nause - but simply one month's PR. A couple of websites encouraging localism, democratic empowerment and sustainable green economics were credible but not going to change embedded bad habits. More radical ideas such as an extensive network of food tunnels around the UK and bio-reactors based on Australian lake deposits became bogged down and over elaborate, although the intention was benign. A bizarre plan to convert email - telephone booths into recycling photo booths was wackiest of the night. But it was the technological products that had the longest shelf life. A rechargeable battery that fitted into a USB port and PC energy saving software were up and running products that probably didn't need PR. Carbon 8 systems - a process that uses accelerated carbon technology to treat contaminated soils and waste - was the most innovative product of the night and got my vote. These entrepreneurs are at the forefront of the environmental battle against climate change and are shaping sustainable futures. Hopefully the next event will have a cash incentive above some simple PR.
http://environment.meetup.com/302/calendar/6770530/
http://environment.meetup.com/302/calendar/6770530/
Monday, November 12, 2007
South Asia’s militarists
South Asia is in the grip of a dual crisis - neighbours Iran and Pakistan face invasion and implosion respectively. The latest can be summarized as this: Iran is accused of developing a nuclear weapons programme, exporting terror and generating regional instability; Pakistan has a nuclear weapons programme, has exported and currently is an epicentre of terror, regarded by the West as a vital ally, but now faces an unpredictable internal political crisis. Both countries have arrived at these current states through dramatic upheaval over the last thirty years, but specifically, two individuals Reza Shah Pahlavi and General Zia ul-haq were critical players in this process. It would be easy to criticise the American foreign policy that supported these two regional strongmen, as part of its anti Soviet geopolitical strategy. The lack of foresight and application of realpolitik is a widely distributed critique and not without merit. But more importantly both dictators thrived in post colonial environments, where nationalism, industrialisation and militarism catapulted their respective states into revolution and division. South Asia’s desire to re-assert itself against the West was a stronger dynamic in shaping today’s predicament than misguided American foreign policy.
American support undoubtedly contributed to both leaders dominance. The Shah was considered by his opponents as America’s puppet, although he would gain the upper hand in the relationship after the quadrupling of oil prices in 1973. General Zia seizure of power – including the execution of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto – drew American criticism, but the Pakistani leader re-positioned his country as a vital weapon against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s. American aid provided the basis for industrialisation for both countries, Iran in the 1960s from the Johnson administration, Pakistan in the 1980s from Carter then Reagan. Arms were the pivot of the dependency. Unprecedented volumes of military equipment were sold to Iran following Nixon’s 1972 carte blanche in exchange for oil revenues; Pakistan acted as the CIA’s conduit, supplying and training the Afghan mujahedin whilst building its own military capacity at the same time. In the post Vietnam era both nations benefited from a relocation of American arms supplies, but it was the ambition of these two leaders that drove their military dictatorships. It was their ambitions that led in different ways to two highly volatile states, now regarded as preeminent international security threats.
The obvious similarity between these two is the critical role designated to them by American Cold War strategy to contain communism. The Shah feared Soviet influence from the early days of his rule, was restored to power by the CIA’s 1953 coup against perceived communist influence, established the brutal security service SAVAK to repress domestic communism, and built up a fearsome military arsenal to counter Soviet influence in Iraq and the Gulf. Zia considered communism the preeminent ideological threat to Islam, cultivated relations with anti-communist hardliners in Washington, and directed Pakistan’s entire military resources in the Afghan-Soviet war.
Domestically both leaders consolidated their power through expansive economic development. The Shah pushed for stratospheric industrialisation fuelled by oil revenues, his ego, and Persian nationalism. Zia presided over modest growth in comparison - seven percent annually - but this development favoured the elites, the military class and Zia political allies. Whilst the Shah used Iran’s natural resource for development, Zia relied on Gulf and American aid. Corruption and economic mismanagement characterised both regimes, eventually creating widespread popular opposition.
The critical constant is Islam, but in totally opposing ways. The Shah acknowledged Shia Islam as part of Persian culture, but presented Pahlavi nationalism as preceding Islam and by implication superior. His extravagances, absolutism and, critically, alliance with the United States alienated the Shia clergy. By focusing on Marxist opposition, the Shia infrastructure – led by Khomeini – was free to develop, laying the path for Islamic revolution. Zia had seen how the power of Islam in Iran shaped politics, so sought to avoid the Shah’s mistakes. Once Zia had seized power, he embarked on an extensive Islamization programme, turning against the grain of Pakistani secular culture, imposing strict Sharia law, restructuring the economy to Islamic precepts, and elevating political party Jamaat e Islami to a central role. Pakistan received vast donations from Saudi Arabia and across the Middle East to establish madrasas and build mosques. Zia encouraged foreign support for both the Afghan jihad and Pakistan’s own Islamic renaissance. But ultimately the consequence of the Shah’s ambivalence and Zia’s proselytizing was the same – the growth of militant Islamism.
The second devastating legacy left by these two autocrats was the proliferation of nuclear technology. The Shah’s nuclear programme – assisted by Kissinger from 1975 - was short-lived and dismantled by Khomeini after 1979, but the infrastructure and expertise plus the very concept of an Iranian bomb remained. Zia’s contribution to South Asia’s nuclear arms race was clearer. Building on the programme established by Bhutto in the early 1970s, Zia pursued an active nuclear agenda – led by AQ Khan – that was ignored by the American leadership, for the sake of preserving Pakistan’s role against the greater Soviet threat. The balance between containment and proliferation always swung to the former in America’s Cold War policy.
Similarities continue in how they managed relations with the West. Both were opportunists, adept at exploiting American geopolitical interests against the backdrop of Cold war policy. The Shah played up the Soviet threat across Iran’s north border, exploited Nixon’s weak foreign policy position through 1972 and 1973, and ultimately received the freedom to purchase any military hardware needed and pursue a hawkish oil policy. Zia likewise seized the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to re-establish relations in Washington and improve his poor international reputation, then exploited Reagan’s hardline against communism to up the military aid.
American arms policy and pursuit a wider geopolitical interests are commonly cited as factors in the region’s transformation in the last two decades of the Cold war, but it was the extremism that developed during both reigns that dominated. Khomeini’s militant rhetoric was inadvertently cultivated by the Shah’s excesses and American alliance, whilst Zia directly cultivated Islamic extremism, creating prototypes for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Just as the Shah pursued his pro Western secular rule to the end – despite fierce clerical opposition; Zia continued his support for the most radical elements in the Afghan jihad - especially Gulbuddin Hekmatyar – until his death.
The consequence of such autocratic behaviour differed in gestation. The Shah’s excesses exploded in Iran at the end of his reign; Zia’s legacy emerged again with a vengeance in the second year of this century in New York. Both leaders left a legacy of resentment, division and brutality. Critically both leaders used American foreign policy and military aid to reinforce their own positions, and while doing so, creating the impression that America only saw South Asian states as pawns against the Soviets. The anti-West sentiment that now exists in South Asia is as much down to the Shah and Zia’s thirst for militarism and its consequences, as it was from American foreign policy.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
United Kingdoms of hypocrisy
Gordon Brown's claims to be a champion of democracy and courage will again be examined tomorrow. In his one-to-one meeting with King Abdullah II, Brown will have the opportunity to raise the question of human rights in the kingdom. Will he? Well bottler Brown created some distance from Bush shortly after taking office, but has not pursued a clear Iraq policy since. He attempted to take the lead during the recent Burma uprising, but this has slipped down the agenda after his snap election fiasco. The neocons are raising the pressure on Iran with military strikes closer than ever, but Brown again has failed to set out a clear British position. So during this completely unnecessary and shameful state visit, Brown has the opportunity to raise beheading, torture (of British subjects as well as countless Saudis), the absence of any democracy, zero advancement in equal gender rights, and the exporting of extremist Wahhabist literature to Britain and ideology across the Middle East. Will he? No probably not. Like his predecessor, his definition of an ethical foreign policy will fall flat under the slightest scrutiny or when money is involved. Through the subtle nuances of diplomatic politeness and blind translation, any attempt at raising HR will fail, the Saudis will simply ignore it or attempt another blackmail, in a similar mode to the BAE investigation. The Saudi royalty may be ignorant, misogynistic, anti semitic and extreme, but they are not stupid. Britain's vulnerability (real and perceived) to losing the Saudi relationship, has been exploited by the guardians of Islam's holiest sites for years to build more palaces and purchase more hi-tech (unused) military hardware.
The idea that Saudi Arabia is a vital ally in the war on terror also fails to convince. Firstly the Saudis were in the large part responsible for the extremist Islam's rise and provided 15 hijackers to prove it. Second, its efforts to prevent jihadists crossing to Iraq have been non-existent - the fear of an Iraqi Shia force is too great a danger to prevent the bombers. Although Saudi Arabian intelligence funded and trained Afghan mujahedin in the 1980s, its presence in South Asia has faded since 2001, when it ceased to be one of the Taliban's three supporters in the world. The recent terrorist threats to Britain emerged deep inside Pakistan's north west frontier not the Gulf.
A blind post-imperial oil-driven foreign policy has dug Britain a hole, in which we are unable to have honest relations with repugnant allies. Hypocrisy still rules the waves and, whether it's Brown or Cameron in charge, will continue to do so.
See also
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1202
The idea that Saudi Arabia is a vital ally in the war on terror also fails to convince. Firstly the Saudis were in the large part responsible for the extremist Islam's rise and provided 15 hijackers to prove it. Second, its efforts to prevent jihadists crossing to Iraq have been non-existent - the fear of an Iraqi Shia force is too great a danger to prevent the bombers. Although Saudi Arabian intelligence funded and trained Afghan mujahedin in the 1980s, its presence in South Asia has faded since 2001, when it ceased to be one of the Taliban's three supporters in the world. The recent terrorist threats to Britain emerged deep inside Pakistan's north west frontier not the Gulf.
A blind post-imperial oil-driven foreign policy has dug Britain a hole, in which we are unable to have honest relations with repugnant allies. Hypocrisy still rules the waves and, whether it's Brown or Cameron in charge, will continue to do so.
See also
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1202
Friday, October 19, 2007
On the edge...
With an eerie sense of inevitability, Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan after an eight year exile turned into one of the country's worst acts of terrorism, with up to 130 people killed. Pakistan has taken one more step towards civil war, between the most likely suspects - militant Islamists - and pro democracy forces. Bhutto has promised to reinstall democracy in a pro American government. This statement in itself is easily enough to incur the wrath of Taleban linked militants and members of the intelligence services (ISI). She also stated her intent to up the battle against Al-Qaida in Pakistan's north west frontier. Forget Iraq, Pakistan is now the front in the global war against militant Islam. Al-Qaida have stated their intention to overthrow Musharraf's government, the Taleban are resurgent and now united with Pakistan's equivalent, and the military retain, possibly expand still, the country's nuclear arsenal. The stakes could not be higher.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Burma - The Lotus Revolution?
The world holds its breath, while world leaders and diplomats discuss the situation in Burma. At what point does the world do anything? Obviously this is a domestic situation and there is a limit to what can be done, but if violence does break out - will the world act? I am sure that various intelligence, diplomatic and unclassifiable figures are working behind the scenes here, but on the surface it seems like we are simply reacting, waiting for something bad to happen and will wheel out some condemnations and sanctions that will make little difference to the insane generals who rule this country. For once a good old fashioned coup - a la Iran 53 - might be acceptable.
It's great that David Milliband makes statements on News24, but this will make little difference to the junta. The pressure needs to put on China first, as they understand that repression is simply unacceptable. It's great that Gordon Brown wrote a book on Aung San Suu Kyi but what will actually do, now this critical moment has arrived. Forget all the other foreign policy issues for the Brown rule, this will be the true test. It also seems astonishing that whilst the UN Security council meet, members countries retain investments there (i.e. French oil company Total), providing economic support to the regime. You either have an ethical CSR programme or you don't. You may oppose forced labour and be aware of local human rights issues, but that is contradicted by actual investment there, which inevitable feeds into the coffers of the corrupt regime.
Limited information is seeping through from Burma, but critically with various media available, any repression will not be kept in the dark. Whether the outcome resembles a Velvet revolution or another 1988 / Tianamen square massacre is unclear. Limited democratic reform could be the solution, if brokered by China. This would establish momentum for eventual democracy. But the tight grip and paranoid outlook of the junta makes compromise unlikely. Mind you, has there ever been a Buddhist revolution?
http://www.burmanet.org/news/
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/index.php
It's great that David Milliband makes statements on News24, but this will make little difference to the junta. The pressure needs to put on China first, as they understand that repression is simply unacceptable. It's great that Gordon Brown wrote a book on Aung San Suu Kyi but what will actually do, now this critical moment has arrived. Forget all the other foreign policy issues for the Brown rule, this will be the true test. It also seems astonishing that whilst the UN Security council meet, members countries retain investments there (i.e. French oil company Total), providing economic support to the regime. You either have an ethical CSR programme or you don't. You may oppose forced labour and be aware of local human rights issues, but that is contradicted by actual investment there, which inevitable feeds into the coffers of the corrupt regime.
Limited information is seeping through from Burma, but critically with various media available, any repression will not be kept in the dark. Whether the outcome resembles a Velvet revolution or another 1988 / Tianamen square massacre is unclear. Limited democratic reform could be the solution, if brokered by China. This would establish momentum for eventual democracy. But the tight grip and paranoid outlook of the junta makes compromise unlikely. Mind you, has there ever been a Buddhist revolution?
http://www.burmanet.org/news/
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/index.php
New wave foreign policy
Gordon Brown in his Treasury straight jacket made only a handful of comments on foreign policy during Blair's ten years, so it is not surprising that this trend continues. Brown obviously had to establish his position over the critical issues - Iraq, the Special Relationship, global poverty - early in his tenure, but the detail has rightly been left to the new Foreign Secretary. David Milliband's predecessors had declining influence over the Blair decade, from Robin Cook's ethical but underachieving first term effort, through Jack Straw's ultimate flattening by Blair's post 9/11 Iraq war juggernaut, to Margaret Beckett's complete awe then subservience with last year's Lebanon war marking the nadir for the Blair era FCO role. Milliband will seek to reassure the FCO staff that this tide is being reversed. But remember only three months ago, he was the Blairite candidate for the next leader and hence with a Blairite foreign policy.
Not unexpectedly, Milliband told Labour conference delegates that lessons had been learnt in the previous years, that multilateral diplomatic solutions were the priority, and that flawed military actions were the cause of current predicaments: "The lesson is that while there are military victories there is never a military solution. There's only military action that creates the space for economic and political life." Current crises in Darfur and Burma were touched on, plus Europe, although this is more political battle with the Murdoch press than a genuine foreign policy issue these days. In the "second wave" of New Labour foreign policy, "progress is possible. Britain has a vital role to play. And the prize is immense."
This is all optimistic stuff, but new crises will emerge and fault lines will develop. Britain can carve out a unique international position or fall into America's slipstream. Brown's frosty encounter with Bush this summer suggests a change, but the unpopularity of Blair's Middle East policy has left such a mark that a change of direction is inevitable. A refocus away from the Middle East is the most likely change ahead, Burma and Zimbabwe are two immediate concerns that will assist this shift. Blair's current role for the Quartet and the Iraq withdrawal, allows Britain to create some distance and unalientate millions of Muslims offended by recent actions. Recreating a positive image of Britain in the Islamic world is surely Milliband's priority. Britain's withdrawal from region also makes involvement in the most serious crisis on the horizon - Iran's nuclear programme - easier. With the end to a proxy war with Iran in Basra, Britain is less likely to be swept along in this crisis. As the diplomatic fulcrum, Britain can carve out a diplomatic role between Iran, America and Israel, improving its world standing immeasurably in the process. An optimistic vision, I admit. There remains a painful contradiction in Britain's foreign policy: the link between business interests and support for repressive regimes. Until we move beyond the BAEs, annual DSEI arms supermarkets and support for military regimes like Pakistan, our foreign policy will continue to be self-defeating.
Rapid global power shifts, climate change and the obvious unexpected crises, mean that the next ten years could look very different to the proceeding decade. India and China are superpowers in the making, but it does not take much for small events to create diplomatic crises - look at Russia-British relations since the Litvinenko murder. Climate change may well supersede all these international spats, when such a global issue arises, it makes diplomatic difference seem irrelevant. Foreign policy may well decline over the next decade and be replaced by International policy. Dramatic changes in environmental conditions could make the idea of an independent foreign policy self defeating and of minor importance.
Not unexpectedly, Milliband told Labour conference delegates that lessons had been learnt in the previous years, that multilateral diplomatic solutions were the priority, and that flawed military actions were the cause of current predicaments: "The lesson is that while there are military victories there is never a military solution. There's only military action that creates the space for economic and political life." Current crises in Darfur and Burma were touched on, plus Europe, although this is more political battle with the Murdoch press than a genuine foreign policy issue these days. In the "second wave" of New Labour foreign policy, "progress is possible. Britain has a vital role to play. And the prize is immense."
This is all optimistic stuff, but new crises will emerge and fault lines will develop. Britain can carve out a unique international position or fall into America's slipstream. Brown's frosty encounter with Bush this summer suggests a change, but the unpopularity of Blair's Middle East policy has left such a mark that a change of direction is inevitable. A refocus away from the Middle East is the most likely change ahead, Burma and Zimbabwe are two immediate concerns that will assist this shift. Blair's current role for the Quartet and the Iraq withdrawal, allows Britain to create some distance and unalientate millions of Muslims offended by recent actions. Recreating a positive image of Britain in the Islamic world is surely Milliband's priority. Britain's withdrawal from region also makes involvement in the most serious crisis on the horizon - Iran's nuclear programme - easier. With the end to a proxy war with Iran in Basra, Britain is less likely to be swept along in this crisis. As the diplomatic fulcrum, Britain can carve out a diplomatic role between Iran, America and Israel, improving its world standing immeasurably in the process. An optimistic vision, I admit. There remains a painful contradiction in Britain's foreign policy: the link between business interests and support for repressive regimes. Until we move beyond the BAEs, annual DSEI arms supermarkets and support for military regimes like Pakistan, our foreign policy will continue to be self-defeating.
Rapid global power shifts, climate change and the obvious unexpected crises, mean that the next ten years could look very different to the proceeding decade. India and China are superpowers in the making, but it does not take much for small events to create diplomatic crises - look at Russia-British relations since the Litvinenko murder. Climate change may well supersede all these international spats, when such a global issue arises, it makes diplomatic difference seem irrelevant. Foreign policy may well decline over the next decade and be replaced by International policy. Dramatic changes in environmental conditions could make the idea of an independent foreign policy self defeating and of minor importance.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Green Wars
A combination of David Cameron's political opportunism, rampant floods across Britain this summer and the boom of supposedly green corporate marketing campaigns by high street retailers, has thrown the issue of greenism to the political forefront. Never before has environmentalism been so prominent in public discourse, but like any other burning issue - in our polarised and sceptical society - naysayers, exploiters, bickerers and political opportunists seek to turn the issue to their advantage. First take the Conservatives, many will see their green agenda as refreshing and full of foresight, bringing in the rural intelligentsia and young urban neo-libs. Others - including Tory grandees descended from 19th century fat cat industrialists, a weary and inherently cynical right wing press, and a handful of Atlanticist CC deniers - tear the party in the opposite direction. The heralded Quality of Life report triggered more debate internally than with the public. If in power, their fragmented views would only worsen.
As political parties act with greater inefficacy, high street brands have attempted to fill the void. And surely they are acting for the greater good, surely they have ample profits to restructure their entire businesses for our new verdant age, and surely they are going to been universally green rather than simply recycling plastic carrier bags. It looks great and green has so far been underused in the marketeers colour scheme, but without actual clear planning and environmental know how, this supermarket sustainability will be unsustained. These contradictions were set out in an excellent article this week.
The final theatre of war in our ecogeddon is a civil war in which both sides will lose but is in political sphere with the most potential and sadly offers the only purist option. In November this year, Green party members will vote in a referendum to decide whether to reform their structure and elect a party leader. Or to maintain the existing non-hierarchical system, where power is horizontal, and two principal speakers front the party. To make progress in British politics and be electable, the Yes campaign argue it is necessary for the public to see a formal figure who can represent the Greens. Leaders can misrepresent, corrupt and erodes party participation, as Derek Wall current principal speaker and No or Green Empowerment voice says: "Conventional leadership with a single leader almost always comes with commitments to water down the message, to remove real debate and participation." Since the major political parties have jumped on the green bandwagon, the pressure on the Green party is more acute. The next election - whenever that is - will be make or break. But would have a leader make a difference? It would be superficial, yes, but could - with the right individual - break down perceptions of Greens and make the party more electable. Cliches of clause 4 aside, something radical does need to happen, as support for the Greens is levelling out with only slow election on election increases. There is real potential for expansion amongst the 18-35 demographic, and any fillip to that would help. Voters don't like divided parties and favour divided confused parties even less. The referendum could provide clarity internally and to the public, then again it could create more disharmony. Then then again, most voters could see it as irrelevant.
Amidst this debate and discord, groups across the country promote their own self-sufficiency. Festivals like Waveform are mostly hedonism, but with a dose of awareness. Government and institutions might continue the debate, but individuals are making real changes themselves.
As political parties act with greater inefficacy, high street brands have attempted to fill the void. And surely they are acting for the greater good, surely they have ample profits to restructure their entire businesses for our new verdant age, and surely they are going to been universally green rather than simply recycling plastic carrier bags. It looks great and green has so far been underused in the marketeers colour scheme, but without actual clear planning and environmental know how, this supermarket sustainability will be unsustained. These contradictions were set out in an excellent article this week.
The final theatre of war in our ecogeddon is a civil war in which both sides will lose but is in political sphere with the most potential and sadly offers the only purist option. In November this year, Green party members will vote in a referendum to decide whether to reform their structure and elect a party leader. Or to maintain the existing non-hierarchical system, where power is horizontal, and two principal speakers front the party. To make progress in British politics and be electable, the Yes campaign argue it is necessary for the public to see a formal figure who can represent the Greens. Leaders can misrepresent, corrupt and erodes party participation, as Derek Wall current principal speaker and No or Green Empowerment voice says: "Conventional leadership with a single leader almost always comes with commitments to water down the message, to remove real debate and participation." Since the major political parties have jumped on the green bandwagon, the pressure on the Green party is more acute. The next election - whenever that is - will be make or break. But would have a leader make a difference? It would be superficial, yes, but could - with the right individual - break down perceptions of Greens and make the party more electable. Cliches of clause 4 aside, something radical does need to happen, as support for the Greens is levelling out with only slow election on election increases. There is real potential for expansion amongst the 18-35 demographic, and any fillip to that would help. Voters don't like divided parties and favour divided confused parties even less. The referendum could provide clarity internally and to the public, then again it could create more disharmony. Then then again, most voters could see it as irrelevant.
Amidst this debate and discord, groups across the country promote their own self-sufficiency. Festivals like Waveform are mostly hedonism, but with a dose of awareness. Government and institutions might continue the debate, but individuals are making real changes themselves.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Relations Renewed?
Predictions of Gordon Brown opening up a cross Atlantic divide or making an immediate Iraq withdrawal, as a gesture to Labour backbenchers, now seem way off the mark after today's first summit with George Bush. A public spat was always unlikely for such a cautious and calculated politician. Rather a more subtle schism has evolved. Brown is the consummate professional and today's performance was business-like, free of his predecessor's showbiz and machismo, and looking towards sorting out serious world issues first and foremost.
Behind the scenes, life goes on. Whether financial, legal, cultural or diplomatic, the ties will not feel even a ripple from Brown's political tide. Britain and the United States will remain bound in the Anglo-America sphere long after the two current leaders have moved on. The focus on personality - whether Colgate or communion - over the last six years clouded what the Special Relationship really is about. Brown - true Atlanticist and devotee of the free market - represents something closer to the core of the relationship. His passion for liberal democracy, open markets, globalisation and humanitarian intervention is probably stronger than Blair's ever was. It was these values that united the Atlantic in the immediate post-war period.
Both current leaders are moving in opposite directions. Brown's successful opening month in office, sees him ahead again in the polls with complete control over his party. Bush's popularity has plummeted, he is lacking any political direction and is isolated with few allies. Brown has been able to play this meeting from a position of strength, maintain cordiality and act firstly in British interests, for the crowd second.
The "special relationship" has always been an obsession of the British media. America has many "special relationships" as well as Britain. Global issues - climate change, international terrorism, Third world poverty - are now reaching critical points. Ensuring that solutions are forged through US-UK leadership seems to be Brown's primary objective, before heading off to the next diplomatic destination. Always the one-man political juggernaut, establishing links with his soulmates amongst the Democrats and tweaking yet more advantage over the Tories seems also to be a Brown prerogative.
But there are several issues that blighted relations in Blair's days and unfortunately it is too early to expect resolution on these, in public at least. Guantanamo, rendition, extradition treaties and Iraq have the potential to re-emerge as divisive and unpopular sticking points. Brown might have made smart political moves, keeping relations civil whilst appeasing both the Murdoch lobby and his own backbenchers, but within his first year in office, he will face the same difficult decisions and cross-Atlantic dilemmas, that did so much harm to his predecessor.
Behind the scenes, life goes on. Whether financial, legal, cultural or diplomatic, the ties will not feel even a ripple from Brown's political tide. Britain and the United States will remain bound in the Anglo-America sphere long after the two current leaders have moved on. The focus on personality - whether Colgate or communion - over the last six years clouded what the Special Relationship really is about. Brown - true Atlanticist and devotee of the free market - represents something closer to the core of the relationship. His passion for liberal democracy, open markets, globalisation and humanitarian intervention is probably stronger than Blair's ever was. It was these values that united the Atlantic in the immediate post-war period.
Both current leaders are moving in opposite directions. Brown's successful opening month in office, sees him ahead again in the polls with complete control over his party. Bush's popularity has plummeted, he is lacking any political direction and is isolated with few allies. Brown has been able to play this meeting from a position of strength, maintain cordiality and act firstly in British interests, for the crowd second.
The "special relationship" has always been an obsession of the British media. America has many "special relationships" as well as Britain. Global issues - climate change, international terrorism, Third world poverty - are now reaching critical points. Ensuring that solutions are forged through US-UK leadership seems to be Brown's primary objective, before heading off to the next diplomatic destination. Always the one-man political juggernaut, establishing links with his soulmates amongst the Democrats and tweaking yet more advantage over the Tories seems also to be a Brown prerogative.
But there are several issues that blighted relations in Blair's days and unfortunately it is too early to expect resolution on these, in public at least. Guantanamo, rendition, extradition treaties and Iraq have the potential to re-emerge as divisive and unpopular sticking points. Brown might have made smart political moves, keeping relations civil whilst appeasing both the Murdoch lobby and his own backbenchers, but within his first year in office, he will face the same difficult decisions and cross-Atlantic dilemmas, that did so much harm to his predecessor.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Second War on Terror
Nearly six years on from 9/11, since which two major wars have been launched and numerous military operations have been undertaken against Islamist enemies, a new far more potentially dangerous showdown is looming. Following the US led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 and the destruction of large segments of Al-Qaeda's infrastructure, the militant group's leadership escaped via Tora Bora to Pakistan's North-West frontier. This remote and rugged border territory has provided the safe haven for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's upper echelon since. It has also assumed the operational centre for attempted plots in Europe and Asia - the 7/7 attacks were co-ordinated from this refuge. The region's importance to Al-Qaeda has now been acknowledged in the latest National Intelligence Estimate. Its value as a safehaven has been long undervalued by the Bush administration, as they maintain that Iraq is now the central front against Islamic extremism. But Pakistan's north flank remains the ideological and operational nerve centre.
Whilst Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq has been a steady source of violence and provided a valuable training arena for future jihadist terrorist operations, the war there remains nationalist and sectarian. The presence of international jihadists in Iraq has long been exaggerated by both the Bush administration and Al-Qaeda to justify the initial invasion and to recruit volunteers to fight the US occupation. The test of wills that exists there means that jihadists will be enlisted and then killed by US troops in a continuous apocalyptic cycle of violence. Protecting the American Homeland will not be influenced by this endless struggle, the terrorism that emits from Iraq has so far been regional and lacks strategic input.
So while Al-Qaida "seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of Al-Qaida in Iraq" and uses AQI to "raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives", its command centre remains Pakistan's North West frontier. This is not a unexpected revelation, the US have fought a low level and unsuccessful campaign alongside the Pakistan army in Waziristan since 2004. Numerous propaganda videos have emerged from the region and intelligence in European terror plots regularly points back to Pakistan. But critically the upsurge in Taliban insurgency, the radicalisation of Pakistani Islamist groups and the recent siege of the Red Mosque, now places the country as the main concern for the US.
The National Intelligence Assessment has been picked up as further evidence of the Bush administration's flawed counterterrorism policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “Changing our strategy in Iraq and narrowing our military mission to countering al Qaeda terrorism [..]would be the single greatest thing we could do to undermine al Qaeda’s ability to use Iraq as a recruiting and propaganda tool fueling the growth of regional terrorist groups.” Countering the threat that exists globally has been hindered by the drain of resources in Iraq. “It is a travesty that Osama bin Laden remains at large nearly six years after the 9/11...the Bush administration and most congressional Republicans remain stubbornly wedded to a flawed strategy in Iraq,” Reid adds. And this is where Pakistan's importance comes in.
President Musharraf's precarious position means that the US will be waiting in the wings to provide military support when needed. This - without doubt - will worsen the situation. The Bush administration have unfinished business with Bin Laden, and any campaign of airstrikes will also make matters worse. Al-Qaeda's links to local tribal leaders, its patronage and the Talibanisation of Pakistan military and civic institutions means that the US face an ever harder hearts-and-minds task than Iraq. Military success will be hard to find. The US unleashed all its military might in October 2001 without achieving their primary objective. Local allies and intelligence agencies are notoriously corrupt, unreliable and prone to change sides in an instance. Airstrikes are also highly flawed and offer easy propaganda.
Cultivating local tribal contacts in a similar way to tactics employed in Iraq's Anbar province could present success. North and South Waziristan have witnessed an influx of 40,000 trained fighters of Arab, Chechen and Uzbek origin. Local Taliban leaders and the Pakistan army came to a peace accord in September 2006, but this was sabotaged by Al-Qaeda. The US (and indeed Britain) are desperate to prop up Musharraf, but face a situation as complicated as Iraq, that they dare not leave to play out to a violent conclusion nor interfere with unpredictable consequences. The border region may be vast and undefined, but the possibility of US attacks on Pakistani soil have been fiercely resisted by officials.
Whilst Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq has been a steady source of violence and provided a valuable training arena for future jihadist terrorist operations, the war there remains nationalist and sectarian. The presence of international jihadists in Iraq has long been exaggerated by both the Bush administration and Al-Qaeda to justify the initial invasion and to recruit volunteers to fight the US occupation. The test of wills that exists there means that jihadists will be enlisted and then killed by US troops in a continuous apocalyptic cycle of violence. Protecting the American Homeland will not be influenced by this endless struggle, the terrorism that emits from Iraq has so far been regional and lacks strategic input.
So while Al-Qaida "seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of Al-Qaida in Iraq" and uses AQI to "raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives", its command centre remains Pakistan's North West frontier. This is not a unexpected revelation, the US have fought a low level and unsuccessful campaign alongside the Pakistan army in Waziristan since 2004. Numerous propaganda videos have emerged from the region and intelligence in European terror plots regularly points back to Pakistan. But critically the upsurge in Taliban insurgency, the radicalisation of Pakistani Islamist groups and the recent siege of the Red Mosque, now places the country as the main concern for the US.
The National Intelligence Assessment has been picked up as further evidence of the Bush administration's flawed counterterrorism policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “Changing our strategy in Iraq and narrowing our military mission to countering al Qaeda terrorism [..]would be the single greatest thing we could do to undermine al Qaeda’s ability to use Iraq as a recruiting and propaganda tool fueling the growth of regional terrorist groups.” Countering the threat that exists globally has been hindered by the drain of resources in Iraq. “It is a travesty that Osama bin Laden remains at large nearly six years after the 9/11...the Bush administration and most congressional Republicans remain stubbornly wedded to a flawed strategy in Iraq,” Reid adds. And this is where Pakistan's importance comes in.
President Musharraf's precarious position means that the US will be waiting in the wings to provide military support when needed. This - without doubt - will worsen the situation. The Bush administration have unfinished business with Bin Laden, and any campaign of airstrikes will also make matters worse. Al-Qaeda's links to local tribal leaders, its patronage and the Talibanisation of Pakistan military and civic institutions means that the US face an ever harder hearts-and-minds task than Iraq. Military success will be hard to find. The US unleashed all its military might in October 2001 without achieving their primary objective. Local allies and intelligence agencies are notoriously corrupt, unreliable and prone to change sides in an instance. Airstrikes are also highly flawed and offer easy propaganda.
Cultivating local tribal contacts in a similar way to tactics employed in Iraq's Anbar province could present success. North and South Waziristan have witnessed an influx of 40,000 trained fighters of Arab, Chechen and Uzbek origin. Local Taliban leaders and the Pakistan army came to a peace accord in September 2006, but this was sabotaged by Al-Qaeda. The US (and indeed Britain) are desperate to prop up Musharraf, but face a situation as complicated as Iraq, that they dare not leave to play out to a violent conclusion nor interfere with unpredictable consequences. The border region may be vast and undefined, but the possibility of US attacks on Pakistani soil have been fiercely resisted by officials.
A Flood of Excuses....
The floods that have hit England in the last few weeks are a massive wake up call, both for responses to climate change and preparedness for the inevitable disasters that this will bring. Natural disasters not only lay a physical toll on a country's infrastructure in particular housing but also exact a heavy political price on government. Whereas terrorism, economic downturn or social disorder can be attributed to certain groups, global trends or individuals, natural disasters have no scapegoat. A political response above blame-pointing is now needed.
President Bush was left floundering with no one to blame in the wake of hurricane Katrina, but managed to make Michael D. Brown the fall guy. Environmental secretary Hillary Benn puts this down to unprecedented rain levels rather than poor flood defences, in an old new labour spin. Prime minister Brown has avoided the denial and thankfully acknowledged that global environmental changes are a cause, but must admit that the country has been hit hard. However stating that we must adapt and cope is not a satisfactory approach for the future.
The political debate focuses on whether the government was prepared, but no political party anticipated this and their reactions have been damp. David Cameron has been criticised for an overseas trip to Africa, whilst his county is three feet under. Since no political party had factored in these events in their environmental policy, they are all treading water.
Environmental disasters always offer an opportunity for the Green party to state their case, and Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall has condemned the government's hypocritical environmental policy: "Government failure to prepare for the flooding is matched by government failure to tackle the causes of climate change. On the one hand the government is encouraging the building of new houses on flood plains, on the other it is expanding Heathrow and our motorway network." How much of a role climate change played in this deluge is unclear though. Dr Malcolm Haylock, an expert on climate extremes: "You can't attribute any specific event to climate change."
As the floods subside though, will this be an opening salvo in our future battle with the climate or will it be another episode in Britain's wacky weather history. Only certain parts of the UK have been effected and summer 2008 could be its usual mild and only slightly unpredictable self. But it might not be floods next time. An urgent public inquiry into prevention and preparedness against all natural disasters is now a priority.
http://www.theecologist.org/blog_full.asp?blog_detail_id=166
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/flood/
President Bush was left floundering with no one to blame in the wake of hurricane Katrina, but managed to make Michael D. Brown the fall guy. Environmental secretary Hillary Benn puts this down to unprecedented rain levels rather than poor flood defences, in an old new labour spin. Prime minister Brown has avoided the denial and thankfully acknowledged that global environmental changes are a cause, but must admit that the country has been hit hard. However stating that we must adapt and cope is not a satisfactory approach for the future.
The political debate focuses on whether the government was prepared, but no political party anticipated this and their reactions have been damp. David Cameron has been criticised for an overseas trip to Africa, whilst his county is three feet under. Since no political party had factored in these events in their environmental policy, they are all treading water.
Environmental disasters always offer an opportunity for the Green party to state their case, and Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall has condemned the government's hypocritical environmental policy: "Government failure to prepare for the flooding is matched by government failure to tackle the causes of climate change. On the one hand the government is encouraging the building of new houses on flood plains, on the other it is expanding Heathrow and our motorway network." How much of a role climate change played in this deluge is unclear though. Dr Malcolm Haylock, an expert on climate extremes: "You can't attribute any specific event to climate change."
As the floods subside though, will this be an opening salvo in our future battle with the climate or will it be another episode in Britain's wacky weather history. Only certain parts of the UK have been effected and summer 2008 could be its usual mild and only slightly unpredictable self. But it might not be floods next time. An urgent public inquiry into prevention and preparedness against all natural disasters is now a priority.
http://www.theecologist.org/blog_full.asp?blog_detail_id=166
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/flood/
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
A Strip of Light
Small successes are rare but always welcome in the Middle East and BBC journalist Alan Johnston's release today is certainly a minor one creating a chink of light within the dark cloud over the region. After 114 days, successful negotiations between his captors (the previously unheard of Army of Islam) and Hamas have not only set free Johnston, but have presented an opportunity for the international community to engage with the Islamist group.
First lets bring in a little bit of perspective. Despite the obvious peril and threats made to Johnston, this was not in the same desperate league as the kidnappings in Iraq. Journalists know the risks and attractions to kidnappers of western journalists, a handful had been kidnapped in Gaza over the last two years. Also, hundreds of Palestinians are detained without trial in Israel and IDF soldier Gilad Schalit remains a hostage as do two soldiers in Lebanon. Clearly those detained illegitimately lack the potential publicity a BBC journalist can drum up. In humanitarian terms, this is a more pressing issue. The release of Johnston always lay in the fractious power struggles within Gaza, rather than Islamists continuous conflict with the West. The demands to release Abu Qatada and others always seemed a red herring (or is that green).
Johnston will lie low for a while with a less risky assignment, the focus has shifted now to Hamas. Since their seizure of power two weeks ago, the group have tightened the pressure on the Dagmush clan. Releasing Johnston was Hamas' first priority and their first true test. Hamas has had slim positive PR since coming to prominence in the 2nd intifada. Their pretensions to being a moderate resistance organisation with legitimate authority and effective governance over Gaza and eventual the whole of Palestine have not been harmed. Israel's politicians have immediately contrasted this act with the year plus custody of Schalit. Whereas Hamas clearly did not hold Johnston, so were able to gain good publicity. They (or more specifically the military wing) are widely assumed to hold Schalit, and any peace negotiation with Israel will start there. Hamas would have more to gain from any deal than Israel in a prisoner swap, which makes any negotiation a long way off.
New Foreign Secretary David Milliband hinted at deepening contacts and trust. Britain might have strengthened its relations (or influence) as a result of this episode, but it is still way short of negotiating with the United States and Israel. The irreconciable differences between Hamas and Israel will be the last possible stage of any peace process. The first step is the settling of bitter differences with Fatah and a national unity government across the whole occupied territories. But Israeli strategists will not deviate from dire predictions of Hamas' long term objectives - the destruction of Israel. Whilst Hamas might reform itself and gain international recognition, Israel will base its see the Islamist group as an existential threat first and foremost.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages//877955.html
First lets bring in a little bit of perspective. Despite the obvious peril and threats made to Johnston, this was not in the same desperate league as the kidnappings in Iraq. Journalists know the risks and attractions to kidnappers of western journalists, a handful had been kidnapped in Gaza over the last two years. Also, hundreds of Palestinians are detained without trial in Israel and IDF soldier Gilad Schalit remains a hostage as do two soldiers in Lebanon. Clearly those detained illegitimately lack the potential publicity a BBC journalist can drum up. In humanitarian terms, this is a more pressing issue. The release of Johnston always lay in the fractious power struggles within Gaza, rather than Islamists continuous conflict with the West. The demands to release Abu Qatada and others always seemed a red herring (or is that green).
Johnston will lie low for a while with a less risky assignment, the focus has shifted now to Hamas. Since their seizure of power two weeks ago, the group have tightened the pressure on the Dagmush clan. Releasing Johnston was Hamas' first priority and their first true test. Hamas has had slim positive PR since coming to prominence in the 2nd intifada. Their pretensions to being a moderate resistance organisation with legitimate authority and effective governance over Gaza and eventual the whole of Palestine have not been harmed. Israel's politicians have immediately contrasted this act with the year plus custody of Schalit. Whereas Hamas clearly did not hold Johnston, so were able to gain good publicity. They (or more specifically the military wing) are widely assumed to hold Schalit, and any peace negotiation with Israel will start there. Hamas would have more to gain from any deal than Israel in a prisoner swap, which makes any negotiation a long way off.
New Foreign Secretary David Milliband hinted at deepening contacts and trust. Britain might have strengthened its relations (or influence) as a result of this episode, but it is still way short of negotiating with the United States and Israel. The irreconciable differences between Hamas and Israel will be the last possible stage of any peace process. The first step is the settling of bitter differences with Fatah and a national unity government across the whole occupied territories. But Israeli strategists will not deviate from dire predictions of Hamas' long term objectives - the destruction of Israel. Whilst Hamas might reform itself and gain international recognition, Israel will base its see the Islamist group as an existential threat first and foremost.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages//877955.html
Monday, July 2, 2007
Crisis Management Lessons Part 1 and 2
Gordon Brown has been in politics long enough to never slip into complacency and having waited ten years to become prime minister, he is probably glad it hasn't been a dull start. Nearly one week in and two crises are upon his newly formed government. Dominating the headlines is the dual terror plot in London and Glasgow. The second crisis, still floating in and out of the headlines, are the floods which hit large parts of northern England last week and remain in many unfortunate homes across Yorkshire. Terror and the environment are on their way to being the two defining issues of Brown's premiership.
Just as airports, national landmarks and sports events are surrounded by armed police and security personnel, the military and emergency services are piling up the sandbags in preparation for the next deluge. Both crises are a real test for the economy and government responsiveness. The floods will eventual subside and the sun might come out in late July, likewise arrests will be made (8 so far) and the British flippancy will return. But what lessons will the Brown government take? Terror and climate change share unpredictable traits, so there are no clear solutions.
Brown's phlegmatic manner and his sturdy - head dinner lady - Home Secretary Jacqui Smith have provided a calm response to the terror attacks. The tactics are clearly inspired by the Iraqi insurgency, one of the suspects qualified as a doctor in Baghdad. The British have created enemies amongst Sunnis and Shia alike, plus there is the unknown Iranian factor. Whereas 7/7 was the product of domestic alienation, this plot has a "blowback" feel, as terrorists trained in bombing tactics in a distant warzone bring their operations back with a vengeance.
Despite the visceral effect of the terrorist attacks, the floods have claimed more lives and will present the longer term threat. The layman assumption was that global warming would, as its name suggests, create droughts and unbearable heat waves, but all round extreme weather is the most likely outcome. Unprecendented rain fall, violent hail storms and widespread flooding poses a new and no less worrying concern. Rather than another annual occurence of heavy rain, this has rightly been classified as a disaster. A budget of £800m has been agreed by the Department of Environment under new secretary Hillary Benn. So far, last week's floods had caused damage to 27,000 homes and 5,000 businesses, with an estimated clean-up cost of £1 billion. Now Britain is certainly not on the frontline of climate change or in a high-risk zone, but if seven people can die in a week's deluge in Britain, then imagine the impact in parts of the world that lack Western standards of infrastructure or emergency response services. Disaster planners and politician are going to need to consider all the possible effects of climate change.
Just as airports, national landmarks and sports events are surrounded by armed police and security personnel, the military and emergency services are piling up the sandbags in preparation for the next deluge. Both crises are a real test for the economy and government responsiveness. The floods will eventual subside and the sun might come out in late July, likewise arrests will be made (8 so far) and the British flippancy will return. But what lessons will the Brown government take? Terror and climate change share unpredictable traits, so there are no clear solutions.
Brown's phlegmatic manner and his sturdy - head dinner lady - Home Secretary Jacqui Smith have provided a calm response to the terror attacks. The tactics are clearly inspired by the Iraqi insurgency, one of the suspects qualified as a doctor in Baghdad. The British have created enemies amongst Sunnis and Shia alike, plus there is the unknown Iranian factor. Whereas 7/7 was the product of domestic alienation, this plot has a "blowback" feel, as terrorists trained in bombing tactics in a distant warzone bring their operations back with a vengeance.
Despite the visceral effect of the terrorist attacks, the floods have claimed more lives and will present the longer term threat. The layman assumption was that global warming would, as its name suggests, create droughts and unbearable heat waves, but all round extreme weather is the most likely outcome. Unprecendented rain fall, violent hail storms and widespread flooding poses a new and no less worrying concern. Rather than another annual occurence of heavy rain, this has rightly been classified as a disaster. A budget of £800m has been agreed by the Department of Environment under new secretary Hillary Benn. So far, last week's floods had caused damage to 27,000 homes and 5,000 businesses, with an estimated clean-up cost of £1 billion. Now Britain is certainly not on the frontline of climate change or in a high-risk zone, but if seven people can die in a week's deluge in Britain, then imagine the impact in parts of the world that lack Western standards of infrastructure or emergency response services. Disaster planners and politician are going to need to consider all the possible effects of climate change.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
New Dawns
Gordon Brown has completed the handover of power from Tony Blair, he has assembled his new cabinet. The emphasis is on 'change': new personnel, 'new talents' and a new style. So he is making every effort to change, but will we - the voters - change? Will the electorate turn against its slide into deeper apathy? The new prime minister can package this 'change' in the most dynamic and cerebral terms, but will the voters respond? Will they see it as a subtle form of spin or will they just change the channel to that other type of reality show?
The Electoral Reform Society thinks that a new government can provide a new opportunity to re-connect with voters and reinvigorate the electorate. Lack of faith in politicians with an emphasis on party-politics has stifled debate and limited the influence of ordinary voters. A well thought out reform of our democratic system is required. "A fair, modern, electoral system is needed if genuine differences of ideas and policies are to be honestly discussed and debated by everyone." A new system reflecting new politics will:
The inclusion of leading business figures in a British Council for Britain shifts the influence of big business from behind closed doors and open to suspicion; to being influential, valued and provided with responsibility. Business has been advancing society in areas government could not reach for decades, and making leading figures part of his 'all the talents' strategy accepts the new reality that market-economics often define citizens' lives far more deeply than government. Big business was flattered and seen as too valuable to upset in the early New Labour days, but it is now respected, treated as an equal partner and part of the process. This a new dawn but big business' day arrived a while back now.
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Document.aspx?id=BF4471DE-1D72-4E6E-9023-A16A89F072A1
The second strand of Brown's renewal is his desire to construct "a government of the talents". The approach to Dame Shirley Williams - following the declined invitation to Paddy Ashdown - could pave the way for a new era of consensus politics, possibly preempting a hung parliament at the next election. Or it could be a political strategy aimed at undermining the Liberal Democrats. Paddy Ashdown's expertise in diplomacy and the minutaie of ethnic struggles has been shown in Bosnia. But Shirley Williams is a strange one. She has a strong background knowledge of international affairs, but so do hundreds of UK academics. Brown's own version of the "big tent" has the potential to create a new type of politics, but unless it is effective and consistent, it will simply be looked at as another political trick. It is unclear what contribution academics like Toby Dodge, Gareth Stansfield or Fred Halliday make to foreign policy especially for the Middle East, but such expertise and knowledge provides a extremely valuable resource.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/zopinion-former-index/legal-and-constitutional/ministerial-hopefuls-await-browns-call-$475493.htm
The Electoral Reform Society thinks that a new government can provide a new opportunity to re-connect with voters and reinvigorate the electorate. Lack of faith in politicians with an emphasis on party-politics has stifled debate and limited the influence of ordinary voters. A well thought out reform of our democratic system is required. "A fair, modern, electoral system is needed if genuine differences of ideas and policies are to be honestly discussed and debated by everyone." A new system reflecting new politics will:
- Make all elections genuine contests so that all voters have an incentive to vote and all parties have an incentive to campaign everywhere;
- Increase the power of voters, by making votes count, and avoiding the pressure for tactical voting, through allowing voters to rank their choice in order of preference;
- Better reflect the views of voters and the diversity of the electorate.
The inclusion of leading business figures in a British Council for Britain shifts the influence of big business from behind closed doors and open to suspicion; to being influential, valued and provided with responsibility. Business has been advancing society in areas government could not reach for decades, and making leading figures part of his 'all the talents' strategy accepts the new reality that market-economics often define citizens' lives far more deeply than government. Big business was flattered and seen as too valuable to upset in the early New Labour days, but it is now respected, treated as an equal partner and part of the process. This a new dawn but big business' day arrived a while back now.
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Document.aspx?id=BF4471DE-1D72-4E6E-9023-A16A89F072A1
The second strand of Brown's renewal is his desire to construct "a government of the talents". The approach to Dame Shirley Williams - following the declined invitation to Paddy Ashdown - could pave the way for a new era of consensus politics, possibly preempting a hung parliament at the next election. Or it could be a political strategy aimed at undermining the Liberal Democrats. Paddy Ashdown's expertise in diplomacy and the minutaie of ethnic struggles has been shown in Bosnia. But Shirley Williams is a strange one. She has a strong background knowledge of international affairs, but so do hundreds of UK academics. Brown's own version of the "big tent" has the potential to create a new type of politics, but unless it is effective and consistent, it will simply be looked at as another political trick. It is unclear what contribution academics like Toby Dodge, Gareth Stansfield or Fred Halliday make to foreign policy especially for the Middle East, but such expertise and knowledge provides a extremely valuable resource.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/zopinion-former-index/legal-and-constitutional/ministerial-hopefuls-await-browns-call-$475493.htm
Monday, June 25, 2007
Climate Change - The Military Response
The impact of climate change in Sub-Sahara Africa has already been witnessed in Darfur, where water shortages have fed tribal conflict since 2003. So far the developed world has failed to act in Sudan, but as the humanitarian crises multiply as a result of global warming, intervention will become inevitable. From now on military planners will have to factor in climate change when preparing for global conflicts, Jock Stirrup, chief of the defence staff said today at Chatham House. What sort of response would be suitable - when faced with unpredictable and unprecedented environmental - is difficult to gauge. Preparedness is the key, the UK's top military official said and the countries that are most vulnerable already have security problems, so military planners might have most of their research covered. But the changes that occur environmentally and their time span are extremely difficult to predict. Regions like Latin America and South East Asia, where local conflicts have simmered for years, could expand and take a severe turn for the worse.
The difficulty in reversing climate change means that the effects and subsequent conflicts are inevitable. Military planners first of all need to recognise the issue, Stirrup said. Dire economic and social conditions may not necessarily lead to terrorism or direct threats to the developed world, but a severe refugee crisis in affected regions would and could lead to new previously unconsidered problems. Despite the inevitable effects - education, disaster preparedness and awareness, solid local governance and economic infrastructures can limit the potential impact.
The difficulty in reversing climate change means that the effects and subsequent conflicts are inevitable. Military planners first of all need to recognise the issue, Stirrup said. Dire economic and social conditions may not necessarily lead to terrorism or direct threats to the developed world, but a severe refugee crisis in affected regions would and could lead to new previously unconsidered problems. Despite the inevitable effects - education, disaster preparedness and awareness, solid local governance and economic infrastructures can limit the potential impact.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Brown and Terror
One of toughest policy arenas that Gordon Brown will face when he replaces Tony Blair this week, will be anti-terrorism legislation. The escalation in radical Islamist activity in the UK from the mid 1990s onwards - culminating in several (mostly foiled) plots against British interests - was a defining issue for Blair in his last few years in office. Brown will have to walk the legal tightrope as his predecessor did and will mostly likely face similar stiff parliamentary and pressure group scrutiny. Human Rights Watch has proposed that Brown undertakes an urgent renewal and re-think of current counterterrorism policies. “The Blair government’s counterterrorism policies have breached human rights, damaged relations with the country’s Muslims, and tarnished Britain’s standing abroad,” said Benjamin Ward, Europe and Central Asia associate director at Human Rights Watch. “A change of course is urgently needed.”
In their briefing paper “Hearts and Minds: Putting Human Rights at the Center of United Kingdom Counterterrorism Policy”, HRW criticise current policy as breaching human rights and in turn losing the battle for hearts and minds. The paper's proposals include:
In their briefing paper “Hearts and Minds: Putting Human Rights at the Center of United Kingdom Counterterrorism Policy”, HRW criticise current policy as breaching human rights and in turn losing the battle for hearts and minds. The paper's proposals include:
- The government’s use of unreliable promises contained in “memorandums of understanding” to return terrorism suspects to countries, including Jordan and Libya, where they face the risk of torture. The government has pursued this policy despite clear evidence that such “diplomatic assurances” from countries where torture is a problem are an ineffective safeguard against abuse.
The UK’s attempts to persuade the European Court of Human Rights to overturn long-standing case law by allowing an exception on the total ban on returns to risk of ill-treatment.
The extension of the period that terrorism suspects can be detained without charge from 14 to 28 days, the longest in the European Union. The government has signaled it intends to renew efforts to extend pre-charge detention to 90 days – equivalent to the average time served in a six-month prison sentence – despite the lack of any evidence that such an extraordinary period is needed to investigate those suspected of terrorism offences.
The use of control orders that seriously restrict liberty on the basis of evidence that falls well below that required to convict a person for a crime. British courts have already struck down eight out of 19 control orders issued on the grounds that they breached human rights.- The government’s enactment into law of the offense of “encouragement of terrorism,” which criminalizes “glorification” of terrorism in a way that at best has a chilling effect on free speech and at worst violates the right to free expression.
- The government’s refusal to allow the use of intercept evidence, acquired by phone tap, to facilitate the prosecution of those accused of involvement in terrorism. The UK is the only Western country with such a total ban.
Like other policy areas, Brown's views on counterterrorist strategy are fairly unknown. The resignation this weekend of Lord Goldsmith may give the impression that a different tact might follow, but whilst the public faces of counterterrorism change, behind the scenes policymakers (and threats) will probably stay the same. Brown stated his support for ID cards and detention without trial last year. Predictably he has promised treasury resources to counter terrorist groups use of the international financial system. Addressing the specially arranged Labour conference today, Brown reiterated that learning from the mistakes in Iraq and winning back Muslim confidence were critical to his counterterrorist strategy. This issue will define Brown's premiership, learning from Blair's mistakes will be a key aim, but inevitably he will struggle to get the balance between human rights and national security right.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Climate Change's First Conflict
There have been many modern wars over natural resources. Oil and gas are obvious ones. Diamonds have fuelled West African conflicts for years. The coca plant is also a natural resource and that has created untold violence in Latin America. Disputes over timber have prolonged conflict in Indonesia. But up until now that most vital resource - water - has not provoked a serious conflict. Water has always been a key issue in the Arab-Israeli dispute, but has been totally overshadowed by nationalism and religion.
UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon said in a Washington Post article this weekend that not only has water played a role in Sudan's Darfur conflict, but this has been caused by climate change. 20 years of declining rainfall, resulting from global warming, has put unbearable strains on Sudanese livelihoods: "Once the rains stopped, farmers fenced their land for fear it would be ruined by the passing herds. For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out." Similar ecological disruptions have caused conflict in Somalia and Ivory Coast.
Ethnic tribalism is obviously a key factor in the Darfur conflict, but chronic economic issues have always existed and have made political settlements only temporary. Ban ki-Moon said that sustained economic development is needed and that "New technologies can help, such as genetically modified grains that thrive in arid soils or new irrigation and water storage techniques." Resolving the Sudan crisis is a massive challenge for the international community and the Secretary General has made it a priority. But what is also important is that someone in his position has highlighted the clear linkage between the competition for resources, climate change and conflict. These are the threats that will shape the 21st century.
The impact of climate change will be predominantly seen in depletion of water sources. The Nile river may well be a focal point, as it runs through ten African states where the population lives below the poverty line. The population in the Nile basin is expected to double in the next 25 years. Egypt and Sudan have extensive rights over the river's water and have been reluctant to negotiate.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Decline of a Venezuelan Oil Revolution?
In a similar self destructive style to his new found economic partner Iran, Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian revolution, funded by oil revenues, is facing mounting difficulties. The World Bank's president elect Robert Zoellick criticised Chavez and his socialist policies today, during a visit to Mexico. Venezuela would not only face the consequences of an overheating oil driven economy, but would also suffer due to political decisions, he said. Let's set aside questions of whether World Bank presidents should make statements that essentially mirror US foreign policy. The primary issue here is if Venezuela reaches a point of meltdown, what will be the impact internally and on its foreign relations.
Venezuela is the world's ninth largest oil producer and provides roughly 13% of the United States imported oil. Given the instability in the Middle East, a secure supply from Venezuela is increasingly important. If Chavez leads Venezuela into deep economic turmoil, he may take an even more strident anti US position. Having courted with previously, he may turn to pariah states like Iran and North Korea as unlikely allies. The upshot of all this would be the economic empowerment of repressive regimes rather than their - hoped for - economic squeeze and internal reform.
Chavez has indicated that he may withdraw from the World Bank and IMF. Encouraged by record oil revenues, Venezuela may continue on the path to global economic independence with its nationalization and redistribution of wealth programmes, but if the management isn't there problems might arise. Having pursued an ardent socialist agenda since becoming president in 1999 - Plan Bolivar 2000 was the seminal mission - without any serious economic disaster, there is cause for optimism. Whatever the rhetoric is from Caracas or Washington, multinationals and oil producers are driving positive relations. Although Chavez will probably not be as inept as the Iranians in managing the economy, his over-confidence may well be his downfall. Ruth de Krivoy, a former Central Bank president who runs SÃntesis Financiera, a Caracas think tank, sees excessive nationalization as a source of economic woe: "The government believes that state-run companies...will take the place of the exploiting' business class," she notes. "But if you erase the private sector from the map, what do you have left? Not much."
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Israel - Palestine: The Three State Solution
Hope never felt fainter and despair greater, than after the shocking events in Gaza of the last few days. The turf war that has simmered for the last few months has reached its defining moment. No longer simple tit-for-tat battles between rival militias - Fatah and Hamas. The latter is now hell-bent on gaining complete control in Gaza. What this total authority will entail is difficult to imagine but extremely concerning. Hamas militants have stated that Islamic rule will follow - although not in the Taliban misogynistic mold. Gaza - traditionally a Hamas stronghold - has the potential to become a small Islamist enclave void of moderate leadership, combining the Taliban's brutality with Iran's anti Israel rhetoric.
Let's for arguments sake stay optimistic about future possibilities here, since the pessimistic outcome is too bad to bear. But in brief, Hamas could use Gaza dominance as a platform for an assault against Israel, with an onslaught on nearby cities with newly acquired Katusha rockets plus a resumption of suicide attacks. A fierce response from Israel would be inevitable. Even more chronic desperation and hardship would follow for those Gazans that have no interest in Hamas militant rule. The impact on the region could be severe.
The optimistic view exists but it is based on a large assumption - that once the internal Gaza violence abates, Hamas does not launch such a reckless campaign against Israel. If Hamas' political leadership can re-establish their control - Ismael Haniya has been noticeably absent in the last few days - then clear divisions within Palestinian politics will appear. The moderate Fatah ruled West Bank against the uncompromising Hamas controlled Gaza. Part of Israel's and the international community's difficulty since Hamas' election victory in 2006 has lied in dealing with a Palestinian Authority that includes both rival factions. After this division, negotiation with an empowered Fatah has greater scope. Despite Mahmoud Abbas dire current position, he would be dominant in the West Bank, having lost Gaza. Israel and the West Bank will be two states working together, waiting for Gaza to catch up. There will be two "peace processes" and two diplomatic paths: one mostly of carrots (Fatah) - one solely of sticks (Hamas).
Israel facilitated the expansion of Hamas in the late 1980s as a rival to Arafat's secular PLO. But now in a stunning reversal, Fatah have been assisted rhetorically by Israel and the United States, although it is doubtful whether arms have been supplied. The policy of divide and rule has certainly worked, but to the extent that both sides loathe each other now. Never before in the Occupied Territories has there been such internecine conflict.
As for Israel, they now have the benefit of a clear defined enemy in Gaza. But Israel controls Gaza's borders and will need to negotiate with Hamas or its proxy to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Negotiating with Hamas would be unprecedented, but the only alternative might be to disconnect totally. Hamas have certainly strengthened militarily since Israel's withdrawal and indeed since the conflict last summer, so a ground invasion will be resisted.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1181813036987&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Let's for arguments sake stay optimistic about future possibilities here, since the pessimistic outcome is too bad to bear. But in brief, Hamas could use Gaza dominance as a platform for an assault against Israel, with an onslaught on nearby cities with newly acquired Katusha rockets plus a resumption of suicide attacks. A fierce response from Israel would be inevitable. Even more chronic desperation and hardship would follow for those Gazans that have no interest in Hamas militant rule. The impact on the region could be severe.
The optimistic view exists but it is based on a large assumption - that once the internal Gaza violence abates, Hamas does not launch such a reckless campaign against Israel. If Hamas' political leadership can re-establish their control - Ismael Haniya has been noticeably absent in the last few days - then clear divisions within Palestinian politics will appear. The moderate Fatah ruled West Bank against the uncompromising Hamas controlled Gaza. Part of Israel's and the international community's difficulty since Hamas' election victory in 2006 has lied in dealing with a Palestinian Authority that includes both rival factions. After this division, negotiation with an empowered Fatah has greater scope. Despite Mahmoud Abbas dire current position, he would be dominant in the West Bank, having lost Gaza. Israel and the West Bank will be two states working together, waiting for Gaza to catch up. There will be two "peace processes" and two diplomatic paths: one mostly of carrots (Fatah) - one solely of sticks (Hamas).
Israel facilitated the expansion of Hamas in the late 1980s as a rival to Arafat's secular PLO. But now in a stunning reversal, Fatah have been assisted rhetorically by Israel and the United States, although it is doubtful whether arms have been supplied. The policy of divide and rule has certainly worked, but to the extent that both sides loathe each other now. Never before in the Occupied Territories has there been such internecine conflict.
As for Israel, they now have the benefit of a clear defined enemy in Gaza. But Israel controls Gaza's borders and will need to negotiate with Hamas or its proxy to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Negotiating with Hamas would be unprecedented, but the only alternative might be to disconnect totally. Hamas have certainly strengthened militarily since Israel's withdrawal and indeed since the conflict last summer, so a ground invasion will be resisted.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1181813036987&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Thursday, June 7, 2007
So far I have been trying to look at the past and how that has shaped our world. In this blog, I am looking at our present situation from the opposite angle. What threats exist to the world, how serious are they, where are the new trouble spots, what can be done before these threats become real. These are some of the questions I hope to answer here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)