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:

• 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.

Brown emphasises change, but is that changing all Blair's unpopular policies or changing a political system on a wider more radical scale. Two developments indicate that he is looking to expand our political sphere.

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

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.

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:

• 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.

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.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/generaldebate/2006/sinews.pdf

http://www.wateraid.org/uk/default.asp

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Oil-Michael-T-Klare/dp/0241143063

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Resource-Wars-Michael-T-Klare/dp/0805055762/ref=pd_sim_b_1/202-4645478-0321445

http://www.securewater.org/index.asp

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 Síntesis 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."

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

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.