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.
Monday, July 30, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)