Sunday, March 22, 2009
Backtracking on renewables
This week saw the disappointing decision by Shell to drop its renewable energy schemes. Having marketed itself as a new dynamic force for alternative and clean energy, they have taken a move based purely on money and not much else. Some other companies have taken similar steps: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/21/renewable-energy1
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Dealing with the inevitable
Next week some leading figures within the climate change debate will gather to help formulate America’s policy at the US Climate Action: A Global Economic Perspective symposium. US legislators will be informed by leading academics and businessmen on the options for tackling the causes and consequences of climate change. That this discussion is still needed is worrying in contrasting ways. Not only because the cause and effect is obvious, but also as there is still deep division as to how to deal with the problem. The symposium is a precursor to the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen in December. The debate on climate change cannot remain in an academic bubble forever. At some point soon, i.e. now, economics and energy security policy will need to be changed to deal with the problem.
A parallel economy has existed for a long time now, involving new technologies that will reduce emissions. But a second parallel economy might be needed as well, one that deals with the consequences of climate change rather than the causes. There is a growing belief that we will have to accept climate change as a fact and limit the damage that it might cause. These inevitable changes will mean radical differences in how the world functions, where populations live and what resources we survive on. The New Scientist spells out in stark terms in its latest issue: in “a world warmed by 4 °C … it may be impossible to return to anything resembling today's varied and abundant Earth…once there is a 4 °C rise, the juggernaut of warming will be unstoppable, and humanity's fate more uncertain than ever.”
The long standing Green opposition to nuclear energy has been one of the first environmental sacred cows to be attacked in recent debate. James Lovelock - proponent of the Gaia hypothesis - was one of the first environmentalists to defy the consensus and argue that nuclear was the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels. That was five years ago and in the meantime the debate has raged, with the government pressing ahead with their nuclear energy policy. But this week four leading environmentalists have broken ranks and reiterated the nuclear case. The issue threatens to split the green movement at a critical moment.
Lovelock has more to say. His conviction is that the earth’s population will peak to 9 billion then plummet to only 1 billion by the end of the century. He also predicts that a permanent changed climate will last 100,000 years. This extremely pessimistic scenario might be extreme, but even if a fraction of his prediction comes true, then the world will be in trouble. His prediction is that a future enviro-catastrophe will resemble the apocalyptic sounding event - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) - of 55 million years ago. He has, kindly, provided some solutions, if you can call them that. Britain, especially, will be a lifeboat of the world, so will be flooded with refugees.
How we adapt our society both in terms of infrastructure and resources is a question that academics, architects and engineers are already looking at. Events like this week’s Ecobuild conference showcase sustainable construction. With such high profile attendees, ideas for restructuring our architectural infrastructure will gain greater momentum. Obviously putting them into practice in a recession is another matter altogether. Likewise rich lists featuring the next generation of eco-entrepreneurs are admirable, but how close these individuals are to central government planning and decision-making is uncertain.
Creating new structures through intelligent engineering was well advocated in an Institution of Mechanical Engineers report - Adapting to the Inevitable. In the energy sector, the report proposes a fundamental move towards the greater decentralisation of energy production, via intelligent local networks, linked with a more internationally interconnected electricity grid to balance supply and demand differences (ie a European ‘supranational’ grid). Sources of water may need to include a higher proportion of underground storage and catchment. Greater levels of desalination may also be required and increased water recycling will become more important. The report believes that buildings adaptation is perhaps the area where most consideration of future climate change has already been made. More specifically effective master planning of urban areas to increase natural and artificial ventilation corridors. Better planned infrastructure is also required to counter possible flooding.
More radical solutions such as geoengineering are also on the cards. With origins in the Cold war and super power research into climate as a weapon, but largely outlawed by the 1970s, geoengineering now acts as a dramatic solution to an out of control problem. Geoengineering could possibly increase the reflectivity of the planet (the albedo) by propelling reflective particles into the upper atmosphere. The idea of aircraft pumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere might seem far-fetched to many, but it would reasonably cheap and would be applied by most nations, in contrast to the expensive and heavy investment options for cutting emissions. Scientific groups including NASA and the Royal Society have been evaluating its potential, whilst environmental groups have been cautious in their endorsement, believing that geoengineering could provide disincentives for cutting emissions. The overall effectiveness, predictability and side effects of geoengineering are questioned by the scientific community. Other risks put forward include weaponisation, geoengineering piracy or the rise of an all powerful megalomaniac with the ability to control the weather for his/her own purposes. Geoengineering could one day by the silver bullet to green issues, but until the science is conclusive, no government is going to invest substantially to take it the next step. Many of these issues are set out in an excellent Foreign Affairs essay this month: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090301faessay88206-p10/david-g-victor-m-granger-morgan-jay-apt-john-steinbruner-katharine-ricke/the-geoengineering-option.html
A parallel economy has existed for a long time now, involving new technologies that will reduce emissions. But a second parallel economy might be needed as well, one that deals with the consequences of climate change rather than the causes. There is a growing belief that we will have to accept climate change as a fact and limit the damage that it might cause. These inevitable changes will mean radical differences in how the world functions, where populations live and what resources we survive on. The New Scientist spells out in stark terms in its latest issue: in “a world warmed by 4 °C … it may be impossible to return to anything resembling today's varied and abundant Earth…once there is a 4 °C rise, the juggernaut of warming will be unstoppable, and humanity's fate more uncertain than ever.”
The long standing Green opposition to nuclear energy has been one of the first environmental sacred cows to be attacked in recent debate. James Lovelock - proponent of the Gaia hypothesis - was one of the first environmentalists to defy the consensus and argue that nuclear was the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels. That was five years ago and in the meantime the debate has raged, with the government pressing ahead with their nuclear energy policy. But this week four leading environmentalists have broken ranks and reiterated the nuclear case. The issue threatens to split the green movement at a critical moment.
Lovelock has more to say. His conviction is that the earth’s population will peak to 9 billion then plummet to only 1 billion by the end of the century. He also predicts that a permanent changed climate will last 100,000 years. This extremely pessimistic scenario might be extreme, but even if a fraction of his prediction comes true, then the world will be in trouble. His prediction is that a future enviro-catastrophe will resemble the apocalyptic sounding event - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) - of 55 million years ago. He has, kindly, provided some solutions, if you can call them that. Britain, especially, will be a lifeboat of the world, so will be flooded with refugees.
How we adapt our society both in terms of infrastructure and resources is a question that academics, architects and engineers are already looking at. Events like this week’s Ecobuild conference showcase sustainable construction. With such high profile attendees, ideas for restructuring our architectural infrastructure will gain greater momentum. Obviously putting them into practice in a recession is another matter altogether. Likewise rich lists featuring the next generation of eco-entrepreneurs are admirable, but how close these individuals are to central government planning and decision-making is uncertain.
Creating new structures through intelligent engineering was well advocated in an Institution of Mechanical Engineers report - Adapting to the Inevitable. In the energy sector, the report proposes a fundamental move towards the greater decentralisation of energy production, via intelligent local networks, linked with a more internationally interconnected electricity grid to balance supply and demand differences (ie a European ‘supranational’ grid). Sources of water may need to include a higher proportion of underground storage and catchment. Greater levels of desalination may also be required and increased water recycling will become more important. The report believes that buildings adaptation is perhaps the area where most consideration of future climate change has already been made. More specifically effective master planning of urban areas to increase natural and artificial ventilation corridors. Better planned infrastructure is also required to counter possible flooding.
More radical solutions such as geoengineering are also on the cards. With origins in the Cold war and super power research into climate as a weapon, but largely outlawed by the 1970s, geoengineering now acts as a dramatic solution to an out of control problem. Geoengineering could possibly increase the reflectivity of the planet (the albedo) by propelling reflective particles into the upper atmosphere. The idea of aircraft pumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere might seem far-fetched to many, but it would reasonably cheap and would be applied by most nations, in contrast to the expensive and heavy investment options for cutting emissions. Scientific groups including NASA and the Royal Society have been evaluating its potential, whilst environmental groups have been cautious in their endorsement, believing that geoengineering could provide disincentives for cutting emissions. The overall effectiveness, predictability and side effects of geoengineering are questioned by the scientific community. Other risks put forward include weaponisation, geoengineering piracy or the rise of an all powerful megalomaniac with the ability to control the weather for his/her own purposes. Geoengineering could one day by the silver bullet to green issues, but until the science is conclusive, no government is going to invest substantially to take it the next step. Many of these issues are set out in an excellent Foreign Affairs essay this month: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090301faessay88206-p10/david-g-victor-m-granger-morgan-jay-apt-john-steinbruner-katharine-ricke/the-geoengineering-option.html
Monday, January 26, 2009
A change of climate you can believe in
At this moment in time, it probably ranks about third place in his in-tray, behind the economy and two ongoing wars. But the environment, to many, easily surpasses these two dominant problems. To effectively tackle climate change, President Obama will need two things: money and political will. Unfortunately he doesn’t have the former yet but an economic recovery will see to that. The political will is there, but Americans fear terrorism and nuclear conflict over climate change at this moment in time. Dealing with these two threats will force the possibility of environmental disaster up the domestic agenda. To many, climate change represents a superior threat, but reflecting the problems facing the United States, it is languishing in third at the moment.
Obama has hit the ground running on every other issue, and today it was the environment. Reversing years of Bush neglect, Obama has embarked on a sweeping range of policies to cut emissions. These include allowing individual states to set their own limits of emissions and imposing fuel efficiency standard on the nation‘s carmakers. Obama also reiterated his campaign pledge to reduce US dependence on foreign oil.
The Obama administration has set out a comprehensive New Energy for America plan. This will create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion in clean technology; significantly reduce imports from the Middle East and Venezuela; expand plug-in Hybrid cars throughout the US; increase the proportion of electricity from renewable sources; develop an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. The first aspect of this plan: job creation and economic development is a masterstroke. It will clearly help America out of the recession, but it also appeals to those American capitalist ideals - enterprise and wealth creation. The Obama plan could create a first generation of enviro-capitalists.
The holy green nexus of clean technology and commerce represents a future for the American economy. It has been noticed by wealthy Arab states, who are embarking on similar projects. Is this the solution to the two critical problems of the day? Climate change and economic uncertainty.
The response to this challenge is due to be included in his $825bn stimulus package. The dire state of the US economy will mean tight restrictions on emissions may not be feasible, at this moment in time at least. Carmakers are also in a dire financial position, so imposing fuel efficiency regulations will also be difficult.
The last eight years have been full of frustration and inaction. The tone for the next four (and hopefully eight) years has been set. Shortly after his election victory, Obama was unequivocal: “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all, delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.” In his inauguration speech he emphasised that the United States would "roll back the spectre of a warming planet" and "restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise healthcare's quality and lower its cost[…]harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.” This direct message contrasts to UK environmental policy which seems at best contradictory and counterproductive, at worse linked to big business interests.
Creating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol will be a priority for Obama. The next global gathering in 2009 is the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. This might be too long to wait. Domestically any agreement through Congress may be difficult. Republican opposition might be added to by Democrats, wary of the impact on employment and the economy, especially in blue collar states.
One key difference between this administration and the previous - when it comes to the environment - is its indebtedness to corporate interests. Whereas the Bush administration was beholden to oil corporates, as seen in his campaigns where the vast majority of donations came from corporate executives and in some extremely dubious influence on energy policy by oil companies like Exxon Mobil. Obama pursued a grass roots fundraising strategy and his corporate links lie in technology, banking and universities.
The final development of energy policy under Obama is the change of personnel within DoE. The new Secretary Steven Chu is a strong advocate of alternative energy and nuclear, as an alternative to fossil fuels. Placing a Nobel winning scientist at the heart of energy policy shows that ideology and cronyism no longer will determine decisions in this critical department. Scientific fact will be the new mantra. The State department will also have a climate change envoy and, who knows, Al Gore might even be asked to help.
Obama has hit the ground running on every other issue, and today it was the environment. Reversing years of Bush neglect, Obama has embarked on a sweeping range of policies to cut emissions. These include allowing individual states to set their own limits of emissions and imposing fuel efficiency standard on the nation‘s carmakers. Obama also reiterated his campaign pledge to reduce US dependence on foreign oil.
The Obama administration has set out a comprehensive New Energy for America plan. This will create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion in clean technology; significantly reduce imports from the Middle East and Venezuela; expand plug-in Hybrid cars throughout the US; increase the proportion of electricity from renewable sources; develop an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. The first aspect of this plan: job creation and economic development is a masterstroke. It will clearly help America out of the recession, but it also appeals to those American capitalist ideals - enterprise and wealth creation. The Obama plan could create a first generation of enviro-capitalists.
The holy green nexus of clean technology and commerce represents a future for the American economy. It has been noticed by wealthy Arab states, who are embarking on similar projects. Is this the solution to the two critical problems of the day? Climate change and economic uncertainty.
The response to this challenge is due to be included in his $825bn stimulus package. The dire state of the US economy will mean tight restrictions on emissions may not be feasible, at this moment in time at least. Carmakers are also in a dire financial position, so imposing fuel efficiency regulations will also be difficult.
The last eight years have been full of frustration and inaction. The tone for the next four (and hopefully eight) years has been set. Shortly after his election victory, Obama was unequivocal: “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all, delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.” In his inauguration speech he emphasised that the United States would "roll back the spectre of a warming planet" and "restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise healthcare's quality and lower its cost[…]harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.” This direct message contrasts to UK environmental policy which seems at best contradictory and counterproductive, at worse linked to big business interests.
Creating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol will be a priority for Obama. The next global gathering in 2009 is the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. This might be too long to wait. Domestically any agreement through Congress may be difficult. Republican opposition might be added to by Democrats, wary of the impact on employment and the economy, especially in blue collar states.
One key difference between this administration and the previous - when it comes to the environment - is its indebtedness to corporate interests. Whereas the Bush administration was beholden to oil corporates, as seen in his campaigns where the vast majority of donations came from corporate executives and in some extremely dubious influence on energy policy by oil companies like Exxon Mobil. Obama pursued a grass roots fundraising strategy and his corporate links lie in technology, banking and universities.
The final development of energy policy under Obama is the change of personnel within DoE. The new Secretary Steven Chu is a strong advocate of alternative energy and nuclear, as an alternative to fossil fuels. Placing a Nobel winning scientist at the heart of energy policy shows that ideology and cronyism no longer will determine decisions in this critical department. Scientific fact will be the new mantra. The State department will also have a climate change envoy and, who knows, Al Gore might even be asked to help.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Blessed are the peacemakers
In another highly assertive statement of diplomatic intent, President Obama has appointed two envoys for the two foreign policy priorities of his administration. Richard Holbrooke will be special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, while George Mitchell will seek peace between the Arabs and Israelis. The task facing these two highly experienced diplomats cannot be underestimated. But within the Democrat foreign policy establishment, these two individuals have the strongest CVs.
Holbrooke has a long career of government service, dating back to the early 1960s. His posts included formulating Vietnam policy, State department East Asian and Near Pacific, and Ambassador to Germany and the United Nations. He has also had senior roles in investment banking, academia and international NGOs. But he is probably best known as the chief architect of the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995. Achieving a lasting peace in the Balkans after the worst conflict in post War Europe was no mean feat. Although Milosevic remained in power and led Serbia into another war in Kosovo in 1999, these accords have held since. Co-ordinating a peace between the Taliban, Afghan army and NATO will be equally difficult, especially when one party - the Taliban - is uncompromising and seeks no form of negotiation. But at some point, the Western forces might have to sit down with some unpleasant figures. Having dealt with those responsible for ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans, Holbrooke has the necessary experience.
Obama stated in his inauguration speech that a “peace” would be sought in Afghanistan. The model may be the Balkans, where a vast international armed force flooded the region and secured a peace. The failures in Afghanistan have been down to insufficient troops - allowing the Taliban to regroup, Holbrooke and Obama intend to counter these past mistakes without making new ones. A lack of diplomatic focus on the region was also a major fault in Bush policy for South Asia, especially from 2003 to 2006, as Iraq dominated American foreign policy. But Holbrooke sees a regional solution, as set out in a recent Foreign Affairs essay: “Afghanistan's future cannot be secured by a counterinsurgency effort alone; it will also require regional agreements that give Afghanistan's neighbors a stake in the settlement. That includes Iran -- as well as China, India, and Russia,” and of course Pakistan. He identifies four critical areas: “the tribal areas in Pakistan, the drug lords who dominate the Afghan system, the national police, and the incompetence and corruption of the Afghan government.”
An equally intractable war was the crowning achievement of George Mitchell. His work as Special Envoy to Northern Ireland during the Clinton Administration led to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. Half Lebanese, Mitchell has a similarly long and distinguished career in public service. A senator for many years and also bizarrely chairman of Disney, he also led international law firm DLA Piper - probably good experience given the number of legal conundrums thrown up by the Middle East conflict. The parallels between Northern Ireland and Palestine have often been raised, as a source of conflict resolution. The comparison is often rejected by Israelis who see Hamas’ statements calling for the destruction of Israel as a totally different order to the IRA. But just as the IRA had a grudging support in Republican communities, Hamas has a similar position with the Palestinians. They may be thugs, but at least they stand up for you. For the West, the parallel is clear. We eventually dealt with the IRA, despite years of denouncements. We may well have to deal with Hamas, as a democratically elected movement. Critically Mitchell has the background to be respected by both sides - he seems the most logical and best choice for this extremely difficult role.
Holbrooke has a long career of government service, dating back to the early 1960s. His posts included formulating Vietnam policy, State department East Asian and Near Pacific, and Ambassador to Germany and the United Nations. He has also had senior roles in investment banking, academia and international NGOs. But he is probably best known as the chief architect of the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995. Achieving a lasting peace in the Balkans after the worst conflict in post War Europe was no mean feat. Although Milosevic remained in power and led Serbia into another war in Kosovo in 1999, these accords have held since. Co-ordinating a peace between the Taliban, Afghan army and NATO will be equally difficult, especially when one party - the Taliban - is uncompromising and seeks no form of negotiation. But at some point, the Western forces might have to sit down with some unpleasant figures. Having dealt with those responsible for ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans, Holbrooke has the necessary experience.
Obama stated in his inauguration speech that a “peace” would be sought in Afghanistan. The model may be the Balkans, where a vast international armed force flooded the region and secured a peace. The failures in Afghanistan have been down to insufficient troops - allowing the Taliban to regroup, Holbrooke and Obama intend to counter these past mistakes without making new ones. A lack of diplomatic focus on the region was also a major fault in Bush policy for South Asia, especially from 2003 to 2006, as Iraq dominated American foreign policy. But Holbrooke sees a regional solution, as set out in a recent Foreign Affairs essay: “Afghanistan's future cannot be secured by a counterinsurgency effort alone; it will also require regional agreements that give Afghanistan's neighbors a stake in the settlement. That includes Iran -- as well as China, India, and Russia,” and of course Pakistan. He identifies four critical areas: “the tribal areas in Pakistan, the drug lords who dominate the Afghan system, the national police, and the incompetence and corruption of the Afghan government.”
An equally intractable war was the crowning achievement of George Mitchell. His work as Special Envoy to Northern Ireland during the Clinton Administration led to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. Half Lebanese, Mitchell has a similarly long and distinguished career in public service. A senator for many years and also bizarrely chairman of Disney, he also led international law firm DLA Piper - probably good experience given the number of legal conundrums thrown up by the Middle East conflict. The parallels between Northern Ireland and Palestine have often been raised, as a source of conflict resolution. The comparison is often rejected by Israelis who see Hamas’ statements calling for the destruction of Israel as a totally different order to the IRA. But just as the IRA had a grudging support in Republican communities, Hamas has a similar position with the Palestinians. They may be thugs, but at least they stand up for you. For the West, the parallel is clear. We eventually dealt with the IRA, despite years of denouncements. We may well have to deal with Hamas, as a democratically elected movement. Critically Mitchell has the background to be respected by both sides - he seems the most logical and best choice for this extremely difficult role.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Gaza - amid the rubble
So the dust settles in Gaza, and looking at the footage that is emerging, there are tonnes of it. Both sides are claiming victory, even though deep down neither believes it. And neither does the outside world for that matter. The Israeli military claim that 25% of the 1,300 plus casualties were Hamas militants; Hamas stated today that as few as 48 of its gunmen had been killed. Hamas may not have portrayed themselves as anything other than a uncompromising militant group, but Israel’s image on balance has taken a serious blow. Global protests are one thing, are expected and dismissed, but the possibility of a war crimes investigation by the UN is a different matter. Israel has made unprecedented efforts to put their case to the international media. But the spin doctors have been working overtime to justify Israel’s brutal onslaught. Amidst this confusion on the ground, a regional picture has become equally cloudy. The neighbouring states have lined up against each other in their political battles for regional hegemony. Nobody has gained from this three week crisis.
The Israeli PR machine has consistently sought to portray Hamas as a militant organisation, hell-bent on Israel’s destruction, a proxy of Iran, a threat to its own people. Israel has been simply defending itself against rocket fire, even though most of the rockets prior to the end of the ceasefire on December 20 had been fired by non-Hamas militants like Islamic Jihad. This cassus belli had a cogent argument, but the disproportionality of their response has quickly undermined their reasoning. The obscene numbers of children, women and innocents killed has put Israel on the PR defensive.
Hamas for their part have missed the opportunity to gain positive PR. Lacking the professional expertise and of course being under siege, they have been unable to define themselves as a legitimate resistance movement to the outside world and alter prejudices about what they stand for. Their pronouncements have appeared quite far fetched. Not quite in the Comical Ali mould, but threats have come to nothing, Israeli troops haven’t died in the predicted numbers. Their supposed military prowess seems to have turned out to be a paper tiger. The problem in assessing claims has been partly caused by Israel’s ban on foreign journalists. But it is also not unlikely that Hamas have exaggerated their relative strength to prove their worth to the Palestinian population. It does seem probable that their personnel has not been depleted, a large proportion of their arms have been destroyed, and their political and social infrastructure has been severely hit. However they may have held back in the face of Israeli military superiority.
It has been left to foreign experts to cast some insight. Sir Jeremy Greenstock was clear in his analysis of Hamas, having had contacts through the Forward Thinking thinktank. Hamas did not advocate the total destruction of Israel; their notorious charter, written in 1987, had never been put into practice; they were not controlled by Iran; and their rule did not resemble the Taliban. Israel has been sharp in its linking of Hamas with the war on terror and Iranian designs for regional hegemony. Not convincing arguments, but they’ve stuck to it and it was convincing enough to gain unequivocal American backing.
Most of Israel’s wars have a political dynamic both nationally and internationally, but this conflict has been remarkably and cynically shaped by such forces. The four dominant personalities in Israeli politics have all seen their fortunes shaped by this war in different ways. Ehud Olmert seeks redemption, before he steps down, for his appalling handling of the 2006 Lebanon war. Benjamin Netanyahu has egged the government on and raised Israeli hopes of a comprehensive defeat of Hamas. The ambiguous result will now aid his election prospects. Tzipi Livni has needed a war to prove her hardline credentials. And Ehud Barak, acting as Defence chief, knows that a good war for him, will provide a guaranteed place in any Labour-Kadima coalition. The forthcoming Israeli election has been vital to this war’s destiny, as has the imminent inauguration of President Obama. The ceasefire has happened just in time to not overshadow this momentous day in American history. It is hard to know how this war would have developed without this political context, or whether it would have happened at all.
So we are now at the status quo ante, but with more hatred and fear on both sides. Israeli politics is just as opaque and divided. The war and its failure to eliminate Hamas will strengthen extremist political forces, like Avigdor Lieberman, who equates the war in Gaza to the American war on Japan in 1945, and the enforced surrender rather than occupation. His comments are extreme, but they reflect a pervasive fear among Israelis, surrounded by enemies, with little sentiment for Palestinian suffering. “They brought it upon themselves” is the common Israeli viewpoint. Just as extremists on the Palestinian side reject the idea of an Israeli state, Israeli far right leaders promote equally uncompromising policies. Thankfully the Israeli Supreme Court has overturned a decision to ban two leading Israeli Arab political parties from the Knesset and the forthcoming elections. Israeli democracy is as shaky as Palestinian.
And what now for the Palestinians? Hamas looks likely to remain in power in Gaza and unless there is a settlement with Fatah, negotiations will still be stuck in a “three state solution”. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas’s position is fragile with little popular support and reports from Gaza tell of a brutal renewal of internecine warfare. Has popular support for Hamas dropped? They have brought violence to the strip, but their message of defiance strikes a chord with every Palestinian.
The regional picture is even more confused. Two apparent sides have formed from the crisis, holding two parallel summits to discuss the crisis. Fatah, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are together on the pro-West position; Syria, Iran and Qatar have met Hamas representatives. Both sides offer totally opposing views on who is responsible for the conflict, but both, thankfully, seem united in providing financial support for reconstruction. This is nothing new. Arab states have often used the Palestinian issue to advance their positions in the region. The Obama administration’s quest for Middle East diplomacy will be even harder with such a division. However a clue to how Obama will tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies in this regional political quagmire. An all encompassing regional solution involving not only this conflict, but peace in Iraq and Iran's nuclear plans, is being touted as Obama's intention.
The Israeli PR machine has consistently sought to portray Hamas as a militant organisation, hell-bent on Israel’s destruction, a proxy of Iran, a threat to its own people. Israel has been simply defending itself against rocket fire, even though most of the rockets prior to the end of the ceasefire on December 20 had been fired by non-Hamas militants like Islamic Jihad. This cassus belli had a cogent argument, but the disproportionality of their response has quickly undermined their reasoning. The obscene numbers of children, women and innocents killed has put Israel on the PR defensive.
Hamas for their part have missed the opportunity to gain positive PR. Lacking the professional expertise and of course being under siege, they have been unable to define themselves as a legitimate resistance movement to the outside world and alter prejudices about what they stand for. Their pronouncements have appeared quite far fetched. Not quite in the Comical Ali mould, but threats have come to nothing, Israeli troops haven’t died in the predicted numbers. Their supposed military prowess seems to have turned out to be a paper tiger. The problem in assessing claims has been partly caused by Israel’s ban on foreign journalists. But it is also not unlikely that Hamas have exaggerated their relative strength to prove their worth to the Palestinian population. It does seem probable that their personnel has not been depleted, a large proportion of their arms have been destroyed, and their political and social infrastructure has been severely hit. However they may have held back in the face of Israeli military superiority.
It has been left to foreign experts to cast some insight. Sir Jeremy Greenstock was clear in his analysis of Hamas, having had contacts through the Forward Thinking thinktank. Hamas did not advocate the total destruction of Israel; their notorious charter, written in 1987, had never been put into practice; they were not controlled by Iran; and their rule did not resemble the Taliban. Israel has been sharp in its linking of Hamas with the war on terror and Iranian designs for regional hegemony. Not convincing arguments, but they’ve stuck to it and it was convincing enough to gain unequivocal American backing.
Most of Israel’s wars have a political dynamic both nationally and internationally, but this conflict has been remarkably and cynically shaped by such forces. The four dominant personalities in Israeli politics have all seen their fortunes shaped by this war in different ways. Ehud Olmert seeks redemption, before he steps down, for his appalling handling of the 2006 Lebanon war. Benjamin Netanyahu has egged the government on and raised Israeli hopes of a comprehensive defeat of Hamas. The ambiguous result will now aid his election prospects. Tzipi Livni has needed a war to prove her hardline credentials. And Ehud Barak, acting as Defence chief, knows that a good war for him, will provide a guaranteed place in any Labour-Kadima coalition. The forthcoming Israeli election has been vital to this war’s destiny, as has the imminent inauguration of President Obama. The ceasefire has happened just in time to not overshadow this momentous day in American history. It is hard to know how this war would have developed without this political context, or whether it would have happened at all.
So we are now at the status quo ante, but with more hatred and fear on both sides. Israeli politics is just as opaque and divided. The war and its failure to eliminate Hamas will strengthen extremist political forces, like Avigdor Lieberman, who equates the war in Gaza to the American war on Japan in 1945, and the enforced surrender rather than occupation. His comments are extreme, but they reflect a pervasive fear among Israelis, surrounded by enemies, with little sentiment for Palestinian suffering. “They brought it upon themselves” is the common Israeli viewpoint. Just as extremists on the Palestinian side reject the idea of an Israeli state, Israeli far right leaders promote equally uncompromising policies. Thankfully the Israeli Supreme Court has overturned a decision to ban two leading Israeli Arab political parties from the Knesset and the forthcoming elections. Israeli democracy is as shaky as Palestinian.
And what now for the Palestinians? Hamas looks likely to remain in power in Gaza and unless there is a settlement with Fatah, negotiations will still be stuck in a “three state solution”. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas’s position is fragile with little popular support and reports from Gaza tell of a brutal renewal of internecine warfare. Has popular support for Hamas dropped? They have brought violence to the strip, but their message of defiance strikes a chord with every Palestinian.
The regional picture is even more confused. Two apparent sides have formed from the crisis, holding two parallel summits to discuss the crisis. Fatah, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are together on the pro-West position; Syria, Iran and Qatar have met Hamas representatives. Both sides offer totally opposing views on who is responsible for the conflict, but both, thankfully, seem united in providing financial support for reconstruction. This is nothing new. Arab states have often used the Palestinian issue to advance their positions in the region. The Obama administration’s quest for Middle East diplomacy will be even harder with such a division. However a clue to how Obama will tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies in this regional political quagmire. An all encompassing regional solution involving not only this conflict, but peace in Iraq and Iran's nuclear plans, is being touted as Obama's intention.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
2008 - A step closer to the abyss
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more" - the world slips closer to the edge of the precipice, but once more we seem to have been reprieved. This cannot go on indefinitely. The lesson of 2008 is that we have edged closer to self-destruction through war, climate and finance, but the world still has an opportunity to fix itself. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been as bad as they could be, but hope of peace is still there. There has been total inaction on climate change this year, but environmentalist movements are as close to government decision makers as ever. The global economy has taken a battering throughout 2008, but has not touched large sections of society.
Another theme of 2008 has been how unresolved regional issues that have simmered have got close to breaking point. These might include Zimbabwe's internal crisis, Russia's short war in Georgia, the protests for democracy in Tibet or the latest Israeli onslaught on Hamas. This reflects badly on the international community as well as those involved. Internal matters are internal matters and there is a limit to what the outside world can do. But a failure to have united positions on issues like Georgia’s NATO membership or vast differences between southern African and European relations with Robert Mugabe have made the international community powerless.
It’s hard to find some positives in 2008, but three events stick out. The Beijing Olympics were very controversial, with questions on censorship, pollution and Tibet scrutinised in the build up. How China will develop as a country and an international actor is still unclear. But the Olympics was a positive step, showing what China can add, rather than what negatives it might have. In September CERN scientists in Geneva launched the Large Hadron Collider, firing protons around a 27 kilometre ring and recreating the Big Bang. Science is one thing that the world is getting right at the moment, and if the same efforts were put into resolving conflict and poverty, the world would be far better off. Finally, it had to be, the one and only. Barack Obama will inevitably disappoint some in the next four years and many of his plans will not work out as planned - that’s the nature of politics. But November 4 was a great day for the optimists. Here are a few summaries on 2008.
Global Economy
2008 was a devastating year for global economics and the financial sector - with a mere $14 trillion wiped off world share values. From September onwards, the state of the global economy, in particular the financial sector has been a dominant issue. The bringing of American mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in public ownership was followed by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the sale of the greatly reduced in value Merrill Lynch. The subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 morphed into the financial crisis of 2008 at this point, since when a tsunami of financial turmoil has followed. The crisis in banking has impacted on most of areas of the economy and has brought the onset of a global recession. The relationship between governments and the free market has been profoundly altered by this crisis. Banks are essential for business, commerce and industry, so a bailout can be justified, even though it was their incompetence that created the mess. A reform of the financial system is promised, but on whose terms - the governments, the taxpayers or the bankers?
Meanwhile, not unrelated, food and energy prices soared in the first half of the year. Food prices increased through many interlinked factors or a “perfect storm“: increased biofuel production; changes in diet in China and India to resource intensive food; higher oil prices impacting on fertilizers and food production; natural disasters like Cyclone Nargis that caused a spike in rice prices. But thanks to the global recession and fall in world demand, food prices are now falling again. Although the credit crunch might impact on farmers production capabilities, causing another surge in prices.
The fluctuating of oil prices throughout 2008 has been one of the year’s most curious economic stories. Prices soared over $100 for the first time in January, and then hit a record $147.27 in July. Prices had been increasing at a gathering rate throughout the decade, but Tensions in the Middle East, increased demand in China and India and a fall in the dollar’s value all contributed to this spike. However just as environmentalists had a minor celebration, hoping that this new era of higher petrol prices would reduce car usage and emissions. And just as governments were talking of pushing the alternative energy agenda further, the global recession brought prices back down again. The rich producer states have invested this incredible boon back into green projects, but will this be enough? Its good PR but expanding these advances in clean technology across the globe will take a long time. The world’s dependency on oil and its role in numerous global issues was reiterated again in 2008.
South Asia
If one area of the globe had a bad year, it was South Asia. 2007 had been a bad year for Pakistan, 2008 was worse. The ongoing conflict in its north westerly border with Taliban militants escalated through the year - air strikes by American unmanned drones raised the temperature further. Pakistan’s chaotic political system took one step forward - with the resignation of the unpopular General Musharraf. This was replaced by the combined PPP leadership of prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and president Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto. Zardari - also known as Mr 10% - is an unlikely saviour for Pakistan. Deeply unpopular with large parts of the population and faced with a worsening security situation, his chances of success appear slim.
Pakistan’s year was just as bad as Afghanistan, where the decline in security has led to a proposed increase in US troops. The so-called Iraqisation of the conflict, complete absence of political authority and an ongoing humanitarian crisis has made Afghanistan worse than ever. Achieving stability in Pakistan first and securing the border seems a likely solution, but this region is so lawless and uncontrollable, that quick progress is very unlikely soon. A General Petraeus led “Sons of Afghanistan” strategy has been hinted at. But 2008 may well be the year that Afghanistan became unsolvable.
India had escaped this maelstrom for most of the year. Domestic terrorism - linked to the Students Islamic Movement of India and Naxalite groups - had occurred throughout the year, but India’s perilous position so close to this chaos was only fully revealed by the November Mumbai attacks. The Mumbai atrocities proved that India still faced a far from resolved situation in Kashmir and that it was on the frontline in the war against Islamic extremism in northern Pakistan. Lashkar-e-Taiba has liberation of Kashmir as its founding objective, but diverting the Pakistani military from its war against the Taliban in the north, was an additional objective from the attacks.
Pakistan is therefore the key country in the region and probably wins the unwanted end of year prize for most dangerous country of 2008. Obama will focus attention on Pakistan after January. It has become a launch pad for attacks on both its neighbours. British intelligence believes that the majority of terrorist plots in the UK are born there. And just to make things worse, it has nuclear weapons.
On a positive note, India has made further progress in securing its position as a leading economic power. If India can cope with the global recession, then it could - alongside China - dominate the next decade. The rise of the Indian billionaires; the immense Indian middle class and their purchasing power; confident expansions abroad, as seen by Tata’s buyout of Jaguar, reflect this upward growth.
Americas
Two questions have dominated American politics in 2008: who will be the next President and what will happen to the economy? The longest, most expensive and most historical election ever kept America in stasis all year. With the current administration out of ideas and with no agenda, their sole objectives were to not make life too difficult for John McCain and to limit the damage from the economic downturn. The official transition might only have started after Obama’s victory in November, but a transition has been in place since the start of the year. Some President’s - notably Clinton - use their remaining time for shuttle diplomacy and end of term initiatives. The Bush presidency has had a slow death since late 2006. Iraq, the defining issue of the last 8 years, has moved to just about bearable situation for Bush to leave on. The economic problems have either been dealt with by bipartisan cooperation or left half resolved for Obama to pick up (in particular the proposed bailout of the car industry). 2008 was a year of change for America, but not a year of action.
South of the border and into Latin America, many questions are unanswered. How will the region cope with a global downturn? Will left wing governments maintain their ascendancy? Whilst Fidel Castro stepped down after half a century, Hugo Chavez looked set to fulfil his ambition as US - antagoniser in chief in the region. The failure of the Bush administration to effectively engage in the region has presented openings for China and Russia to strengthen ties. Latin American leaders are not only looking for new alliances, but they are also strengthening cooperation across the continent.
The problems that have characterised Latin America still exist though. Drug trafficking on a vast scale still has a deep impact on society and politics from Colombia north to Mexico. In the latter, brutal and gruesome gang wars threaten to consume the whole state. With such narco-power, gangs in Mexico have turned the country into a northerly version of Colombia. Corrupt politicians have allowed the traffickers to become a real threat to the state. The drug wars in Latin America have simmered for a long time, they reached a dangerous point in 2008, next year will probably be worse. President Obama might face one of his worst crises just south of the border.
Environment
One step forward, one step back was the theme for the environment in 2008. Governments claim that they have introduced a range of measures to cut emissions and made the changes necessary for society to tackle climate change. Activists will claim that these measures have not gone far enough and that other actions - like proposed extra runways or nuclear power stations - are at best counterproductive, at worse a major step backwards.
Another theme of 2008 has been how unresolved regional issues that have simmered have got close to breaking point. These might include Zimbabwe's internal crisis, Russia's short war in Georgia, the protests for democracy in Tibet or the latest Israeli onslaught on Hamas. This reflects badly on the international community as well as those involved. Internal matters are internal matters and there is a limit to what the outside world can do. But a failure to have united positions on issues like Georgia’s NATO membership or vast differences between southern African and European relations with Robert Mugabe have made the international community powerless.
It’s hard to find some positives in 2008, but three events stick out. The Beijing Olympics were very controversial, with questions on censorship, pollution and Tibet scrutinised in the build up. How China will develop as a country and an international actor is still unclear. But the Olympics was a positive step, showing what China can add, rather than what negatives it might have. In September CERN scientists in Geneva launched the Large Hadron Collider, firing protons around a 27 kilometre ring and recreating the Big Bang. Science is one thing that the world is getting right at the moment, and if the same efforts were put into resolving conflict and poverty, the world would be far better off. Finally, it had to be, the one and only. Barack Obama will inevitably disappoint some in the next four years and many of his plans will not work out as planned - that’s the nature of politics. But November 4 was a great day for the optimists. Here are a few summaries on 2008.
Global Economy
2008 was a devastating year for global economics and the financial sector - with a mere $14 trillion wiped off world share values. From September onwards, the state of the global economy, in particular the financial sector has been a dominant issue. The bringing of American mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in public ownership was followed by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the sale of the greatly reduced in value Merrill Lynch. The subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 morphed into the financial crisis of 2008 at this point, since when a tsunami of financial turmoil has followed. The crisis in banking has impacted on most of areas of the economy and has brought the onset of a global recession. The relationship between governments and the free market has been profoundly altered by this crisis. Banks are essential for business, commerce and industry, so a bailout can be justified, even though it was their incompetence that created the mess. A reform of the financial system is promised, but on whose terms - the governments, the taxpayers or the bankers?
Meanwhile, not unrelated, food and energy prices soared in the first half of the year. Food prices increased through many interlinked factors or a “perfect storm“: increased biofuel production; changes in diet in China and India to resource intensive food; higher oil prices impacting on fertilizers and food production; natural disasters like Cyclone Nargis that caused a spike in rice prices. But thanks to the global recession and fall in world demand, food prices are now falling again. Although the credit crunch might impact on farmers production capabilities, causing another surge in prices.
The fluctuating of oil prices throughout 2008 has been one of the year’s most curious economic stories. Prices soared over $100 for the first time in January, and then hit a record $147.27 in July. Prices had been increasing at a gathering rate throughout the decade, but Tensions in the Middle East, increased demand in China and India and a fall in the dollar’s value all contributed to this spike. However just as environmentalists had a minor celebration, hoping that this new era of higher petrol prices would reduce car usage and emissions. And just as governments were talking of pushing the alternative energy agenda further, the global recession brought prices back down again. The rich producer states have invested this incredible boon back into green projects, but will this be enough? Its good PR but expanding these advances in clean technology across the globe will take a long time. The world’s dependency on oil and its role in numerous global issues was reiterated again in 2008.
South Asia
If one area of the globe had a bad year, it was South Asia. 2007 had been a bad year for Pakistan, 2008 was worse. The ongoing conflict in its north westerly border with Taliban militants escalated through the year - air strikes by American unmanned drones raised the temperature further. Pakistan’s chaotic political system took one step forward - with the resignation of the unpopular General Musharraf. This was replaced by the combined PPP leadership of prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and president Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto. Zardari - also known as Mr 10% - is an unlikely saviour for Pakistan. Deeply unpopular with large parts of the population and faced with a worsening security situation, his chances of success appear slim.
Pakistan’s year was just as bad as Afghanistan, where the decline in security has led to a proposed increase in US troops. The so-called Iraqisation of the conflict, complete absence of political authority and an ongoing humanitarian crisis has made Afghanistan worse than ever. Achieving stability in Pakistan first and securing the border seems a likely solution, but this region is so lawless and uncontrollable, that quick progress is very unlikely soon. A General Petraeus led “Sons of Afghanistan” strategy has been hinted at. But 2008 may well be the year that Afghanistan became unsolvable.
India had escaped this maelstrom for most of the year. Domestic terrorism - linked to the Students Islamic Movement of India and Naxalite groups - had occurred throughout the year, but India’s perilous position so close to this chaos was only fully revealed by the November Mumbai attacks. The Mumbai atrocities proved that India still faced a far from resolved situation in Kashmir and that it was on the frontline in the war against Islamic extremism in northern Pakistan. Lashkar-e-Taiba has liberation of Kashmir as its founding objective, but diverting the Pakistani military from its war against the Taliban in the north, was an additional objective from the attacks.
Pakistan is therefore the key country in the region and probably wins the unwanted end of year prize for most dangerous country of 2008. Obama will focus attention on Pakistan after January. It has become a launch pad for attacks on both its neighbours. British intelligence believes that the majority of terrorist plots in the UK are born there. And just to make things worse, it has nuclear weapons.
On a positive note, India has made further progress in securing its position as a leading economic power. If India can cope with the global recession, then it could - alongside China - dominate the next decade. The rise of the Indian billionaires; the immense Indian middle class and their purchasing power; confident expansions abroad, as seen by Tata’s buyout of Jaguar, reflect this upward growth.
Americas
Two questions have dominated American politics in 2008: who will be the next President and what will happen to the economy? The longest, most expensive and most historical election ever kept America in stasis all year. With the current administration out of ideas and with no agenda, their sole objectives were to not make life too difficult for John McCain and to limit the damage from the economic downturn. The official transition might only have started after Obama’s victory in November, but a transition has been in place since the start of the year. Some President’s - notably Clinton - use their remaining time for shuttle diplomacy and end of term initiatives. The Bush presidency has had a slow death since late 2006. Iraq, the defining issue of the last 8 years, has moved to just about bearable situation for Bush to leave on. The economic problems have either been dealt with by bipartisan cooperation or left half resolved for Obama to pick up (in particular the proposed bailout of the car industry). 2008 was a year of change for America, but not a year of action.
South of the border and into Latin America, many questions are unanswered. How will the region cope with a global downturn? Will left wing governments maintain their ascendancy? Whilst Fidel Castro stepped down after half a century, Hugo Chavez looked set to fulfil his ambition as US - antagoniser in chief in the region. The failure of the Bush administration to effectively engage in the region has presented openings for China and Russia to strengthen ties. Latin American leaders are not only looking for new alliances, but they are also strengthening cooperation across the continent.
The problems that have characterised Latin America still exist though. Drug trafficking on a vast scale still has a deep impact on society and politics from Colombia north to Mexico. In the latter, brutal and gruesome gang wars threaten to consume the whole state. With such narco-power, gangs in Mexico have turned the country into a northerly version of Colombia. Corrupt politicians have allowed the traffickers to become a real threat to the state. The drug wars in Latin America have simmered for a long time, they reached a dangerous point in 2008, next year will probably be worse. President Obama might face one of his worst crises just south of the border.
Environment
One step forward, one step back was the theme for the environment in 2008. Governments claim that they have introduced a range of measures to cut emissions and made the changes necessary for society to tackle climate change. Activists will claim that these measures have not gone far enough and that other actions - like proposed extra runways or nuclear power stations - are at best counterproductive, at worse a major step backwards.
Friday, December 26, 2008
America's new ally
Its four weeks until President-elect Obama's inauguration and then the fun begins. The members of his new administration are very familiar - made up of current Bush appointees like Robert Gates and Democrat regulars, in particular Secretary of State Clinton. But we are no wiser as to how the new administration will approach the countless problems facing the world. Foreign policy never works the same in print or the academic arena as it does in the bad and dangerous real world.
Plenty has been written about who President Obama will visit first and which foreign leader will have that privilege of an Oval lawn press conference first. The convention says that American leaders usually engage with key regional allies first. Canada and Mexico are the usual favourites. But international allies often follow quickly. President Chirac was the first foreign leader to visit George Bush, although this was before his inauguration. Blair was the first non North American leader to visit in February 2001. British prime minister Brown and President Sarkozy will be champing at the bit, after either Mexico or Canada are catered for.
But given the critical situation in the world, this convention of meeting key international allies should be put off this time. Here is an alternative first visitor. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev should at least be at the White house before the first month is out. Russia are widely feared and distrusted, but their importance is vastly understated.
The worsening in relations between the United States and Russia during the Bush era was totally avoidable, reflecting American arrogance and Russian bitterness. The five day Georgian conflict was the culmination of this decline. Bush and Putin had initially warmed and had many similarities - both blunt and arrogant men united with machismo and callousness as seen by their hardline responses to terrorist atrocities. As Obama's website summarizes well: "the Bush Administration's erratic policy of embracing Vladimir Putin but neglecting U.S.-Russian relations". America's Iranian obsession that led to missiles defence plans in Eastern Europe and blind unilateralism that left no room for anyone but a few willing "partners", created unnecessary splits.
The installation of missiles in Poland and Czech Republic and the encroaching expansion of the NATO to Georgia, owed plenty to a Cold war ideology of containment and arms build ups that still remained in the Republican party. As Obama's campaign puts well again: "Retrofitting outdated 20th century thinking to address this new 21st century challenge". With these Cold war warriors finally gone, a new attitude to Russia can develop in Washington. Not only is Russia a different international player to its Cold war guise, new global realities make Russia both a completely different potential ally with modern day interests but also with a previously untouched range of talents that the international community can draw on. Russia through its immense historical authority and vast natural resources still has the power to influence in the world's most difficult places. This persuasiveness has been left on the sides lines for the last eight years. Obama, hopefully, is smart enough to realise that Russia is indispensable.
Russia realises like the rest of the world that Obama's presidency is a watershed. Obama and Medvedev have already spoken and US-Russia relations were put down as a priority. Creating positive relations with Russia, is also given its own sub-heading on Obama's website. To him it should and does rank alongside working with Israel, dealing with Iran and of course Iraq.
Plenty has been written about who President Obama will visit first and which foreign leader will have that privilege of an Oval lawn press conference first. The convention says that American leaders usually engage with key regional allies first. Canada and Mexico are the usual favourites. But international allies often follow quickly. President Chirac was the first foreign leader to visit George Bush, although this was before his inauguration. Blair was the first non North American leader to visit in February 2001. British prime minister Brown and President Sarkozy will be champing at the bit, after either Mexico or Canada are catered for.
But given the critical situation in the world, this convention of meeting key international allies should be put off this time. Here is an alternative first visitor. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev should at least be at the White house before the first month is out. Russia are widely feared and distrusted, but their importance is vastly understated.
The worsening in relations between the United States and Russia during the Bush era was totally avoidable, reflecting American arrogance and Russian bitterness. The five day Georgian conflict was the culmination of this decline. Bush and Putin had initially warmed and had many similarities - both blunt and arrogant men united with machismo and callousness as seen by their hardline responses to terrorist atrocities. As Obama's website summarizes well: "the Bush Administration's erratic policy of embracing Vladimir Putin but neglecting U.S.-Russian relations". America's Iranian obsession that led to missiles defence plans in Eastern Europe and blind unilateralism that left no room for anyone but a few willing "partners", created unnecessary splits.
The installation of missiles in Poland and Czech Republic and the encroaching expansion of the NATO to Georgia, owed plenty to a Cold war ideology of containment and arms build ups that still remained in the Republican party. As Obama's campaign puts well again: "Retrofitting outdated 20th century thinking to address this new 21st century challenge". With these Cold war warriors finally gone, a new attitude to Russia can develop in Washington. Not only is Russia a different international player to its Cold war guise, new global realities make Russia both a completely different potential ally with modern day interests but also with a previously untouched range of talents that the international community can draw on. Russia through its immense historical authority and vast natural resources still has the power to influence in the world's most difficult places. This persuasiveness has been left on the sides lines for the last eight years. Obama, hopefully, is smart enough to realise that Russia is indispensable.
Russia realises like the rest of the world that Obama's presidency is a watershed. Obama and Medvedev have already spoken and US-Russia relations were put down as a priority. Creating positive relations with Russia, is also given its own sub-heading on Obama's website. To him it should and does rank alongside working with Israel, dealing with Iran and of course Iraq.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Real Rulers of Damascus
In the first high-level visit by a British official for seven years, David Milliband will meet Syrian president Bashar al-Assad tomorrow with the hope of bringing the pariah state back into the fold of the Middle East peace process. The foreign secretary will be hoping for an easier time than Tony Blair encountered in 2001, when the Syrian (and Arab) view of the region was stated in blunt terms. For many analysts Syria is the potential linchpin of stability and security: the patrons of Hamas and Hizbollah; the key to easing tensions over Iran's nuclear programme. But Syria is not simply Assad. Behind this young and confident leader is a complex hierarchy that few outside Damascus understand.
'If we do not talk with Assad, there will not be peace in the Middle East.' President Nicolas Sarkozy said recently. His importance to the country's fortunes is beyond doubt, but his control over internal security in Syria and Lebanon is unclear. What role did Assad have over the Hariri assassination, what control does he have over insurgent camps on the Iraq border, would he have the authority to break from Iran and suspend support for radical groups?
Bashar al-Assad assumed power in July 2000 after his father's death, having held no interest in politics to that point. Trained in London as an ophthalmologist, his rule has reflected this worldly and progressive background. But being thrust into the intensity of Middle Eastern politics at thirty-four years, a naivety has often been shown. Whilst this inexperience was shown in his reaction to the UN's Hariri investigation, there has been shrewdness in maintaining Syria's influence and combativeness against the West's pressure. Assad has been no pushover - whether against Blair in 2001 or after the barrage of warnings from America in mid 2003.
'If we do not talk with Assad, there will not be peace in the Middle East.' President Nicolas Sarkozy said recently. His importance to the country's fortunes is beyond doubt, but his control over internal security in Syria and Lebanon is unclear. What role did Assad have over the Hariri assassination, what control does he have over insurgent camps on the Iraq border, would he have the authority to break from Iran and suspend support for radical groups?
Bashar al-Assad assumed power in July 2000 after his father's death, having held no interest in politics to that point. Trained in London as an ophthalmologist, his rule has reflected this worldly and progressive background. But being thrust into the intensity of Middle Eastern politics at thirty-four years, a naivety has often been shown. Whilst this inexperience was shown in his reaction to the UN's Hariri investigation, there has been shrewdness in maintaining Syria's influence and combativeness against the West's pressure. Assad has been no pushover - whether against Blair in 2001 or after the barrage of warnings from America in mid 2003.
One of the West's prime accusations against Syria is its support for radical Islamist groups through its Iranian alliance. But this stands in stark contrast to Assad's own secular progressive background and also his wife's. Born and educated in Britain and having pursued a career in investment banking, Asma al-Assad has championed women's rights as Syria's first lady. The relationship between Iran and Syria can thus be explained as one of convenience rather than shared values. When interviewed by news channels Bashar Assad appears mild mannered, intelligent and fluent in English, but to many he is seen as one of the main obstacles to peace in the region and a supporter of violent radicalism. The two don't match up - an explanation may be that he represents a front and real power lies elsewhere.
Assad's sister Bushra is regarded as the intellectual force in the Syrian inner circle and has promoted her husband - Assef Shawkat - up the ranks of Damascus power, against the family's wishes. He now is head of military intelligence and is seen as the strongman of the regime. Shawkat had his assets frozen after being implicated in the Hariri assassination. He has also been accused of supporting Sunni Islamist terrorist groups in north Lebanon, whilst duplicitiously also conducting a public campaign to contain terrorism. Bushra - known as the "iron lady" - has the steel to drive her husband's ambitions but also to ensure her brother's position is secure. They are both considered to have held ambitions for Syria's top job. Finally the fourth member of this inner circle is the fourth Assad brother Maher, who has violent reputation and fell out with Shawkat in the late 1990s. Also implicated by the UN's Mehri report, he controls Syria's Republican Guard.
The latest rapprochement between Syria and the West is a positive development. But like Iran, domestic politics will play as much an influence on the course of negotiations as any shared interests between the Damascus leader and Western diplomats. Bashar al-Assad sent a congratulatory message to new president Barack Obama and Britain and Syria have agreed to closer intelligence co-operation. Shortly after the publication of the UN's report on the Hariri assassination, Bashar's days appeared numbered. He could have easily capitulated to Western demands and handed over his brother or brother-in-law, but he successfully weathered that storm. Faced with extreme external pressure, the Assad family has united around Bashar's leadership.
The rumour mill of the Middle East loves characters like the Assads, as their secrecy means that any host of interpretations of their intentions can be devised. Bushra a-Assad was this year rumoured to be seeking political asylum in France; Shawkat was reported to be under house arrest for his role in the assassination of Hezbollah number two Imad Mughnieh. The "suicide" of interior minister Ghazi Kanaan in 2005 was a classic addition to the Syrian rumour mongers armoury. Western politicians may have some greater insight than the public, but they may also be as confused as everyone else about where the true power in Damascus lies.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
As America celebrates...
Whilst well over half of America celebrates the election of the first black president and the end of a disastrous Republican administration, two world events could prove prescient for the four years ahead. Six militants were killed in the first serious incident between Israel and Hamas since the ceasefire was agreed and in Mexico a plane crash has killed some of the government's top anti-cartel figures. These represent just two current flash points and who knows where other dangers lie in the next four years. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Russian Caucasus and Pakistan are obvious locations. Barack Obama has other more urgent issues like the economy to deal with, but at some point foreign policy will rise to the top of his in-tray with a vengeance. For all his charisma and international appeal, Obama does not hold the silver bullet to world order and America will hold enemies regardless of who is in the White house.
The escalating narco-wars in Mexico represent a new potential threat on America's southern flank, whilst the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the oldest foreign policy issue around but still the most important. Northern Mexico has resembled Iraq of late with a wave of brutal inter-cartel murders often accompanied by gruesome torture. Corrupt police forces and politicians have left the Mexican government impotent and powerless to act. The cartels have even infiltrated the US embassy. American policy in Colombia under four previous Presidents made no difference to the narcotic flow despite the billions being pumped south, so success in Mexico is a tough task. Mexico has not been listed on many analyses of Obama's foreign policy priorities, but it could be a running sore for the next few years. The intensity of the violence could spark something more serious.
A resolution of the Palestine question would not end the turbulence in the Middle East, but it would neutralise some of the poison that has afflicted America's relationship with the region. Syria would offer less antagonism towards the US, and so may Iran. The Palestinians plight has never been central to Al-Qaeda's agenda, although it has been used all the same, so a settlement would not ease this front. But the resentment in the wider region that provides a pool of recruits would be relieved by any agreement. The need to prioritise the peace process is obvious, but achieving this is another matter. This has been beyond almost all previous Presidents, even Clinton failed and that was with two fairly moderate leaders and a positive mood in the wake of the Oslo accords. Now Hamas and Israel could launch full scale hostilities any day. With the possibility of an intransigent right wing government being elected in Israel early next year, the two sides could become even more entrenched.
Afghanistan and Iraq will most likely take precedence in the early part of the Obama presidency. If there is an advantage for Obama over previous Clinton and Bush administrations, it is that the seriousness of crises on his in-tray, forces quick and decisive formulation of foreign policy strategy. Clinton spent his first year in foreign policy anonymity, Bush only showed an interest once he had to - after September 11. The Obama doctrine has been clearly set out over the course of the campaign, but events and new conflicts can alter or ruin any pre-planned ideas very easily. Both his predecessors doctrines were widely discredited by the end of their presidencies.
Many foreign policy experts believe the Obama presidency will represent continuity. But the relationship between America and its allies will certainly see improvements. The total break down of relations between Europe and the Bush administration that began with the build up to the Iraq war has remained for the last five years. The rapturous reception Obama received on his late summer tour of Europe is pretty much mirrored by European politicians. The EU was humiliated by Russia in its conflict with Georgia, so it is crying out for new encouragement on the world stage. The role of the EU had been undermined in international issues - like the Iran nuclear issue. Carrot and stick diplomacy usually meant the EU provided weak carrots; the American administration wildly brandished the stick. A more multilateral approach is surely more likely now.
With the middle name of Hussein, you would think that Barack Obama will be able to reach out to moderates across the Middle East. This will happen and America's soft power will be restored, but the region has become riven with cynicism after the last eight years. Radical groups like Al-Qaida are a different matter. Engaged in a long war, the individual characteristics of presidents is not that relevant. Obama has placed Afghanistan as a priority as well as stabilising Pakistan. General Petraeus is looking to divide nationalist insurgents from jihadists in Afghanistan as was successful in Iraq. The approach to Iran will require real patience and tact -Obama traits - but it might be a Syria first strategy.
So Obama has four years to clear up the mess left by the Bush administration. No recent president has had such a daunting foreign policy agenda to deal with. Clinton had Somalia but this hadn't escalated; Bush snr had the Cold war but perestroika was in full flow by 1988. Obama will hope that Bush leaves no more unwanted legacies in the transition period. A possibility but unlikely given today's gracious congratulations. But then as Mexico's upward violent spiral shows, other fronts and crises are able to arise at any moment.
The escalating narco-wars in Mexico represent a new potential threat on America's southern flank, whilst the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the oldest foreign policy issue around but still the most important. Northern Mexico has resembled Iraq of late with a wave of brutal inter-cartel murders often accompanied by gruesome torture. Corrupt police forces and politicians have left the Mexican government impotent and powerless to act. The cartels have even infiltrated the US embassy. American policy in Colombia under four previous Presidents made no difference to the narcotic flow despite the billions being pumped south, so success in Mexico is a tough task. Mexico has not been listed on many analyses of Obama's foreign policy priorities, but it could be a running sore for the next few years. The intensity of the violence could spark something more serious.
A resolution of the Palestine question would not end the turbulence in the Middle East, but it would neutralise some of the poison that has afflicted America's relationship with the region. Syria would offer less antagonism towards the US, and so may Iran. The Palestinians plight has never been central to Al-Qaeda's agenda, although it has been used all the same, so a settlement would not ease this front. But the resentment in the wider region that provides a pool of recruits would be relieved by any agreement. The need to prioritise the peace process is obvious, but achieving this is another matter. This has been beyond almost all previous Presidents, even Clinton failed and that was with two fairly moderate leaders and a positive mood in the wake of the Oslo accords. Now Hamas and Israel could launch full scale hostilities any day. With the possibility of an intransigent right wing government being elected in Israel early next year, the two sides could become even more entrenched.
Afghanistan and Iraq will most likely take precedence in the early part of the Obama presidency. If there is an advantage for Obama over previous Clinton and Bush administrations, it is that the seriousness of crises on his in-tray, forces quick and decisive formulation of foreign policy strategy. Clinton spent his first year in foreign policy anonymity, Bush only showed an interest once he had to - after September 11. The Obama doctrine has been clearly set out over the course of the campaign, but events and new conflicts can alter or ruin any pre-planned ideas very easily. Both his predecessors doctrines were widely discredited by the end of their presidencies.
Many foreign policy experts believe the Obama presidency will represent continuity. But the relationship between America and its allies will certainly see improvements. The total break down of relations between Europe and the Bush administration that began with the build up to the Iraq war has remained for the last five years. The rapturous reception Obama received on his late summer tour of Europe is pretty much mirrored by European politicians. The EU was humiliated by Russia in its conflict with Georgia, so it is crying out for new encouragement on the world stage. The role of the EU had been undermined in international issues - like the Iran nuclear issue. Carrot and stick diplomacy usually meant the EU provided weak carrots; the American administration wildly brandished the stick. A more multilateral approach is surely more likely now.
With the middle name of Hussein, you would think that Barack Obama will be able to reach out to moderates across the Middle East. This will happen and America's soft power will be restored, but the region has become riven with cynicism after the last eight years. Radical groups like Al-Qaida are a different matter. Engaged in a long war, the individual characteristics of presidents is not that relevant. Obama has placed Afghanistan as a priority as well as stabilising Pakistan. General Petraeus is looking to divide nationalist insurgents from jihadists in Afghanistan as was successful in Iraq. The approach to Iran will require real patience and tact -Obama traits - but it might be a Syria first strategy.
So Obama has four years to clear up the mess left by the Bush administration. No recent president has had such a daunting foreign policy agenda to deal with. Clinton had Somalia but this hadn't escalated; Bush snr had the Cold war but perestroika was in full flow by 1988. Obama will hope that Bush leaves no more unwanted legacies in the transition period. A possibility but unlikely given today's gracious congratulations. But then as Mexico's upward violent spiral shows, other fronts and crises are able to arise at any moment.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
End of days
In 40 days time, the American public will vote for a new President, who then will be sworn in a further two and a half months later - a hell of a lot can happen in this time. Three crises are reaching fever pitch at the moment and at least one will cast a dark shadow over this concluding period. First Iran. Tensions between the United States, Israel and Iran have simmered all year. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech to the UN in New York has only outraged anti-Iran groups further and now even Obama is expressing outrage at his anti-semitic and confrontational comments. The war of words has continued with the IAEA acting as an ineffectual referee. The longer Iran is perceived to be un-cooperative and obstructionist - the less patient America and Israel will be. An attack on Iran is not considered likely before 4 November, but in the post election vacuum, and if there is an Obama victory, a parting shot by Bush (egged on by Dick Cheney) at Iran's nuclear installations is considered a real possibility.
Will this happen? The Bush administration has had Tehran in its cross hairs for most of its tenure. The "not on my watch" syndrome is a strong influence for Bush and Iran continues to provoke and be defiant. But whether America attacks Iran seems related to the second crisis that dominates US foreign policy. The crisis in Pakistan that is now on all fronts - military, political and economic is making the Iran crisis seem totally innocuous in comparison. The expansion of Taliban-jihadi influence in the tribal areas of north-west Pakistan, the weakness of Islamabad's civilian leadership and the duplicitous role of the military-ISI has created an explosive mix. Pakistan is getting worse every day. It seemed to be on the precipice at the end of last year, after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but its state has only detiorated since. On top of this, American and Pakistani troops have exchanged fire, after US Special forces conducted a cross border raid from Afghanistan.
The Bush administration has finally realised the seriousness of the Afghanistan conflict, having been pre-occupied by Iraq for most of the last five years. It also hopes to capture or kill as many Al-Qaida leaders as possible in its remaining months, including possibly the greatest prize Osama Bin Laden. The re-organized Taliban and its Al-Qaida allies are so submerged in the region though, that air raids, lightning operations and certainly conventional operations are fairly ineffective. A large scale bombing campaign might eliminate a score of enemy fighters, but would create an outcry in the region fierce enough to push Pakistan over the edge. Last weekend's suicide attack on the Marriott hotel underlined what everyone knows - Pakistan is facing a grave threat from jihadist terrorism. Repelling the attacks from the safe haven of the Pakistani tribal areas is an immense challenge to the American military, let alone a disorganised Pakistani army. Dealing with this situation is Bush's priority and thus puts Iran on the back burner.
But the two crises are related - logistically at least - Taliban forces have been armed by Iran according to some reports. Pakistan's upheaval and Iran's nuclear ambitions are driven by domestic factors way beyond the influence of Washington policymakers. Bush's role is forgiven in some respects. But the policies of the Bush administration have also made these countries worse, and the president might feel obliged to tidy up his mess in the crudest way possible.
Finally as the credit crunch is approaching its moment of truth, the US treasury is pushing for Congress to approve a $700bn bail out package for American banks. The deal will go through - simply because its failure would end American economic power as we know it. But whether it is the panacea for the global credit crisis is unclear. The American economy may well suffer further for the rest of the year. Whatever happens Bush's economic legacy seems as bad as his foreign policy one. Not only has America moved nearer recession and its previously unrivalled position as the centre for global capital been severely dented, but it has surrendered economic initiative to China and to a lesser extent India, Russia and the EU. One could also argue that the loss of soft power under Bush has made America an unattractive economic prospect as well. The Bush administration has been plagued with incompetent decision making, but fortunately the global financial crisis is such an out of control behemoth that any Bush action will probably make little difference. A parting shot is in the offing, the world will be holding its breath until January 20th.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
End of the silly season?
British politics has the fortune of a peaceful summer month to give followers of current affairs a welcome break from the turbulent world that we live in. In such unforgiving environments elsewhere, a similar break would be a minor miracle. But despite the perpetual gloom, some positive moments have occured in the Middle East. As the season ended, the US significantly handed over the restive province of Anbar in west Iraq. Once the epicentre of the insurgency - a destructive nexus of Al-Qaida in Iraq, Sunni nationalists and Ba'thists - it has experienced a dramatic improvement in the last year. An important moment for the country.
The success here linked, not to a large degree but in part, to a ruthless campaign in Baghdad by the coalition. A good summer story to boost sales and provide some gung-ho sweat to a predictably cold summer was the disclosure by General Petraeus that SAS had played a vital role in securing the capital. Undercover SAS hit teams conducted a secret war had taken out 3,500 terrorists in a year and a half. Pure but probably true propaganda. The story was only picked up by the right wing newspapers, and was probably good sunbed reading.
More machoism this week, as an Israeli cabinet minister suggests that Mossad could kidnap Iranian president Ahmadinejad. Forgetting the logistical difficulties, Israel would be walking into a legal minefield. A country that has by many accounts broken numerous international laws tries to prosecute a leader who has threatened to break another law, in a figurative sense. It would dominate the syllabus of international law students for years.
Some wilder moments have arisen in the summer's required reading that has been published in Washington. First the revelation that American intelligence spied on Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The success here linked, not to a large degree but in part, to a ruthless campaign in Baghdad by the coalition. A good summer story to boost sales and provide some gung-ho sweat to a predictably cold summer was the disclosure by General Petraeus that SAS had played a vital role in securing the capital. Undercover SAS hit teams conducted a secret war had taken out 3,500 terrorists in a year and a half. Pure but probably true propaganda. The story was only picked up by the right wing newspapers, and was probably good sunbed reading.
More machoism this week, as an Israeli cabinet minister suggests that Mossad could kidnap Iranian president Ahmadinejad. Forgetting the logistical difficulties, Israel would be walking into a legal minefield. A country that has by many accounts broken numerous international laws tries to prosecute a leader who has threatened to break another law, in a figurative sense. It would dominate the syllabus of international law students for years.
Some wilder moments have arisen in the summer's required reading that has been published in Washington. First the revelation that American intelligence spied on Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
It's the climate stupid!
The Democrats have anointed Barack Obama and now the Republicans will do the same for John McCain in Minnesota this week. The differences between how each candidate will preside are becoming starker as Obama's progressive middle class multicultural agenda clashes with a conservative coalition of evangelicals and the free market financial elite. The backdrop of a serious global economic downturn, war in the Caucasus, and yet more confrontation in the Middle East, will probably dominate for the next few months of the contest, but by far the most important issue is still the lowest priority and this despite recent events in New Orleans.
Voters have been myopic when it comes climate change so far. We have yet to have a climate change election and fortunately on this occasion, it won't be. Both Obama and McCain accept the reality of climate change and will push for renewed international co-operation if elected. McCain's vice president Sarah Palin does not believe climate change is man-made - a problematic position for sure. And if elected the traditional economic interests that bankroll the Republicans may come to the fore. But compared to Bush's obstinacy and ignorance on the issue, the future is more optimistic. The UN Secretary General believes the next president must take the global lead on the issue.
Voters have been myopic when it comes climate change so far. We have yet to have a climate change election and fortunately on this occasion, it won't be. Both Obama and McCain accept the reality of climate change and will push for renewed international co-operation if elected. McCain's vice president Sarah Palin does not believe climate change is man-made - a problematic position for sure. And if elected the traditional economic interests that bankroll the Republicans may come to the fore. But compared to Bush's obstinacy and ignorance on the issue, the future is more optimistic. The UN Secretary General believes the next president must take the global lead on the issue.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Fanning the Olympic flames...
Sport and politics don't mix they say - try telling that to the Olympians. The history of the modern Olympics has been laced with incidents ranging from good old fashioned boycotts, to exploiting the games for propaganda, to acts of mindless terrorism. Look at the games through the years and the prevailing malaise often comes to the fore. The rise of Nazism marked the 1936 event; the Mexico City games of 68 were remembered for two American athletes' black power salute. 1972 was in the midst of ever more imaginative international terrorism - the death of 11 Israeli weightlifting team members made the event permanently associated with terror not sport. Then in the height of the "second Cold War", both the United States and the Soviet Union used the 1980 and 1984 games not as a platform for detente but - through boycotts - as another way to show disgust towards the other.
Thankfully recent Olympics have been more docile, without violence or part of warped geopolitics. Although the 1996 Atlanta event felt the ugly side of homegrown American terrorism. Perhaps staging the event in the kind of places most people would go on holiday, with no indigenous terrorism or autocratic regimes looking for any fillip possible, helps. Barcelona, Sydney and Athens fit the safety first option.
For Beijing though, the decision to award the Olympia was based on "international recognition of China's social stability, economic progress and the healthy life of the Chinese people." The IOC probably knew they were gambling, considering the safe alternatives that lost out to Beijing - Toronto and Paris. But the Olympics has always seen itself as a force for change and good in the world - the chance to bring one billion Chinese into the 21st century was too good an opportunity to miss.
Unfortunately under the international microscope, Chinese government policies are exposed. It is interesting to consider whether these issues are being examined minutely due to the Olympics, whether the protagonists are raising the protests and odds to capture this moment, or whether in a more globalised world we are just more interested in what happens thousands of miles away. So we have had international protests against China's long running iron fist policies in Tibet. Firstly in Llasa itself and then during the cross nation Olympic flame journey. China's misconception of how the world perceived their brutality in Tibet was exposed in snowy April Sunday in London, although not to the viewers back home. Then China suffered a devastating earthquake in Sichuan province, where nearly 70,000 people have died. Although an apolitical event, the Chinese authorities knew international focus required a decisive and compassionate response, which was delivered. It would be extremely cynical to say that such response was purely due to the Olympics, but international opinion was probably not not considered.
The prickly subject of censorship is an ongoing source of tension between the relative organisers. Having promised open media access, Chinese authorities have been slow in unblocking websites deemed politically sensitive, but progress is being made - apparently. Add to this ongoing concerns with Chinese human rights record that Amnesty are more than happy to raise - a series of broken promises as their timely report reveals. Oh and don't forget chronic smog over Beijing that puts the games (well outdoor events at least) in real doubt. The embarrassment of smog effected delays and cancellations could do far more damage than any protester might inflict, whether in a "protest pen" or not.
The final factor that threatens to turn a merely controversial Olympics into an ugly one, is that old favourite - terrorism. Today's attack by separatists from the Muslim region of Xinjiang on a police border post has brought serious concern for the organizers. Previously unheard of groups like the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) are now centre stage. Predictably linked to Al-Qaeda they are putting the Olympics in a new perspective.
But despite minor teething problems, these Olympics are China's sales pitch to the world. It is their chance to impress us, beyond simple economic competence and it is also, at the same time, China's chance to understand the rest of the planet. China is an easy target for anyone concerned with human rights and there will be many who hope that the Olympics somehow fail as justice for their disregard for Tibet, Tianamen, etc. But there is a benign innocence to the Chinese - vis-à-vis the rest of the world - and any embarrassing cock-up would be a tad cruel given their zeal and desire for recognition.
Thankfully recent Olympics have been more docile, without violence or part of warped geopolitics. Although the 1996 Atlanta event felt the ugly side of homegrown American terrorism. Perhaps staging the event in the kind of places most people would go on holiday, with no indigenous terrorism or autocratic regimes looking for any fillip possible, helps. Barcelona, Sydney and Athens fit the safety first option.
For Beijing though, the decision to award the Olympia was based on "international recognition of China's social stability, economic progress and the healthy life of the Chinese people." The IOC probably knew they were gambling, considering the safe alternatives that lost out to Beijing - Toronto and Paris. But the Olympics has always seen itself as a force for change and good in the world - the chance to bring one billion Chinese into the 21st century was too good an opportunity to miss.
Unfortunately under the international microscope, Chinese government policies are exposed. It is interesting to consider whether these issues are being examined minutely due to the Olympics, whether the protagonists are raising the protests and odds to capture this moment, or whether in a more globalised world we are just more interested in what happens thousands of miles away. So we have had international protests against China's long running iron fist policies in Tibet. Firstly in Llasa itself and then during the cross nation Olympic flame journey. China's misconception of how the world perceived their brutality in Tibet was exposed in snowy April Sunday in London, although not to the viewers back home. Then China suffered a devastating earthquake in Sichuan province, where nearly 70,000 people have died. Although an apolitical event, the Chinese authorities knew international focus required a decisive and compassionate response, which was delivered. It would be extremely cynical to say that such response was purely due to the Olympics, but international opinion was probably not not considered.
The prickly subject of censorship is an ongoing source of tension between the relative organisers. Having promised open media access, Chinese authorities have been slow in unblocking websites deemed politically sensitive, but progress is being made - apparently. Add to this ongoing concerns with Chinese human rights record that Amnesty are more than happy to raise - a series of broken promises as their timely report reveals. Oh and don't forget chronic smog over Beijing that puts the games (well outdoor events at least) in real doubt. The embarrassment of smog effected delays and cancellations could do far more damage than any protester might inflict, whether in a "protest pen" or not.
The final factor that threatens to turn a merely controversial Olympics into an ugly one, is that old favourite - terrorism. Today's attack by separatists from the Muslim region of Xinjiang on a police border post has brought serious concern for the organizers. Previously unheard of groups like the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) are now centre stage. Predictably linked to Al-Qaeda they are putting the Olympics in a new perspective.
But despite minor teething problems, these Olympics are China's sales pitch to the world. It is their chance to impress us, beyond simple economic competence and it is also, at the same time, China's chance to understand the rest of the planet. China is an easy target for anyone concerned with human rights and there will be many who hope that the Olympics somehow fail as justice for their disregard for Tibet, Tianamen, etc. But there is a benign innocence to the Chinese - vis-à-vis the rest of the world - and any embarrassing cock-up would be a tad cruel given their zeal and desire for recognition.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Justice land
After the controversial, time consuming and ultimately unsuccessful trial of Milosevic, the UN war crimes tribunal at the Hague has its second big catch - Radovan Karadzic. His arrival at the Hague today provides an opportunity of justice for some of worst crimes in Europe since the second World War, but as Milosevic's trial showed, this can be an arduous process. Lower ranking individuals with less responsibility and blood on their hands have been prosecuted successfully, but those further up the Serb food chain have thus far escaped justice. Croat, Bosnian and even Kosovar idictees have faced the Hague, but none of the very unholy trinity of Milosevic, Karadzic or the still at large Ratko Mladic, who were responsible for the vast majority of the carnage, have faced a final reckoning. Although the ICTY is 15 years old, without a full and complete prosecution of these three, the court will be perceived as under-achieving.
Karadzic's crimes are numerous. As leader of the Serbian Democratic Party (Srpska Demokratska Stranka) in Bosnia, he assumed the commanding military role, as Bosnian Serb forces sought to preserve their territory at the expense of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. Beyond the relentless campaign of ethnic cleansing, Karadzic oversaw the cruel siege of Sarajevo, then is alleged to have ordered the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995. Milosevic's take on Serb nationalism was manipulative and opportunistic, and was also from a distance in Belgrade with every effort to avoid culpability. But Karadzic sought no veil of guilt, his pronouncements at the time were unflinching: "In just a couple of days, Sarajevo will be gone and there will be five hundred thousand dead, in one month Muslims will be annihilated in Bosnia and Herzegovina". The ICTY has a compelling case for Karadzic.
Karadzic's crimes are numerous. As leader of the Serbian Democratic Party (Srpska Demokratska Stranka) in Bosnia, he assumed the commanding military role, as Bosnian Serb forces sought to preserve their territory at the expense of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. Beyond the relentless campaign of ethnic cleansing, Karadzic oversaw the cruel siege of Sarajevo, then is alleged to have ordered the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995. Milosevic's take on Serb nationalism was manipulative and opportunistic, and was also from a distance in Belgrade with every effort to avoid culpability. But Karadzic sought no veil of guilt, his pronouncements at the time were unflinching: "In just a couple of days, Sarajevo will be gone and there will be five hundred thousand dead, in one month Muslims will be annihilated in Bosnia and Herzegovina". The ICTY has a compelling case for Karadzic.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Middle East - Chapter 6
The Middle East see-saw is fluctuating with its characteristic unpredictability as moves towards peace and ceasefires are matched by new tensions and violence. There is a sense that a new chapter in the region is opening. Partly due to several political facts that will occur in the next six months, but partly due to a long overdue re-evaluation of the problems in the region and the best way to resolve them. This new chapter could possibly see South West Asia move onto a more equal standing to the rest of the industrialised world, but it also has the potential to become far worse - even to the point of total destruction. So finish reading chapter five, make yourself a cup of tea, then turn the page to start this gripping new chapter....
What we do know and can predict with some certainty are the following. That a new American president will be elected by the end of the year and with this will follow a re-consideration of US policy in the region. The new President will either stay in Iraq until an unspecified date or will initiate a troop withdrawal to be completed within a 16 month time frame. Those are pretty stark differences in policy. The second way in which the new President will impact on the region is diplomatic. One will maintain the current diplomatic freeze on Iran, tighten sanctions and take military action if it comes to it. The other will meet the Tehran leadership without preconditions. Again with such differences in policy the future of the region could go either way. Tehran will also hold elections in 2009 and the end of Ahmadinejad's radical rule could change the course of this crisis. Regarding Israel and the Palestinians, both candidates have expressed strong support for Israel recently and have not put forward any radical alternatives to the status quo, so that conflict will continue as it is.
Linked to America's destiny in the region is the strong possibility of some sort of enhanced sovereignty for Iraq. As Iraqi forces gain the upper hand against the insurgency, greater political control will follow. Ten out of Iraq's 18 provinces have been handed back to Iraqi government control - Diwaniyah is the latest. The tide may well have turned since the start of the surge in 2007, but Sunni provinces are still beyond the Baghdad government's control. Iraq also remains heavily influenced by Iran, the provinces under Iraqi government control are Shiite and Prime Minister Maliki shows no sign of cooling Iranian ties under American pressure. But the battle against the militias appears to being won and maybe, just maybe, 2009 could be a year of serious reconciliation for Iraq. Iraq is pushing for further sovereignty with the setting of a US timetable for withdrawal and possible prosecution of American troops but these are flimsy aspirations.
Finally for the United States, as Iraq achieves some vague concept of stability, a new front is re-opened in Afghanistan. The recent revival of the Taliban shows that western concepts of victory are very flimsy. A "victory" in late 2001 seems a long way off now. The Taliban may have been in power from 1996 for five years, but once ousted, they simply reverted back to their previous guise as the insurgency that defeated the Soviets in the 1980s. Having regrouped in Pakistan, they pose an even greater threat to regional stability. Bin Laden is not heard of, but he seems irrelevant, as the international jihadist movement has established its own momentum. Expect America's involvement in the Afghan war to take a dangerous twist in the next chapter.
Another near certainty for the region is a change in political leadership in Israel. A Likud win in Israel's elections raises the possibility of renewed war with Hezbollah and military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran will achieve nuclear capability in the next two years, according to Israeli intelligence, so war may be inevitable regardless of who leads Israel. The long delayed full scale invasion of Gaza will probably happen as well, regardless of who leads Israel. Linked to America's destiny closely, the relationship between new leaders in both countries, will be critical. Presidents have regularly been well received in Israel, mostly because the said President has gone out of his way to appear pro Israeli. But Israeli public opinion is unsure about Obama and what approach he will adopt. A new US-Israel relationship could emerge, but many have argued it will slip back into the traditional mould.
What we do know and can predict with some certainty are the following. That a new American president will be elected by the end of the year and with this will follow a re-consideration of US policy in the region. The new President will either stay in Iraq until an unspecified date or will initiate a troop withdrawal to be completed within a 16 month time frame. Those are pretty stark differences in policy. The second way in which the new President will impact on the region is diplomatic. One will maintain the current diplomatic freeze on Iran, tighten sanctions and take military action if it comes to it. The other will meet the Tehran leadership without preconditions. Again with such differences in policy the future of the region could go either way. Tehran will also hold elections in 2009 and the end of Ahmadinejad's radical rule could change the course of this crisis. Regarding Israel and the Palestinians, both candidates have expressed strong support for Israel recently and have not put forward any radical alternatives to the status quo, so that conflict will continue as it is.
Linked to America's destiny in the region is the strong possibility of some sort of enhanced sovereignty for Iraq. As Iraqi forces gain the upper hand against the insurgency, greater political control will follow. Ten out of Iraq's 18 provinces have been handed back to Iraqi government control - Diwaniyah is the latest. The tide may well have turned since the start of the surge in 2007, but Sunni provinces are still beyond the Baghdad government's control. Iraq also remains heavily influenced by Iran, the provinces under Iraqi government control are Shiite and Prime Minister Maliki shows no sign of cooling Iranian ties under American pressure. But the battle against the militias appears to being won and maybe, just maybe, 2009 could be a year of serious reconciliation for Iraq. Iraq is pushing for further sovereignty with the setting of a US timetable for withdrawal and possible prosecution of American troops but these are flimsy aspirations.
Finally for the United States, as Iraq achieves some vague concept of stability, a new front is re-opened in Afghanistan. The recent revival of the Taliban shows that western concepts of victory are very flimsy. A "victory" in late 2001 seems a long way off now. The Taliban may have been in power from 1996 for five years, but once ousted, they simply reverted back to their previous guise as the insurgency that defeated the Soviets in the 1980s. Having regrouped in Pakistan, they pose an even greater threat to regional stability. Bin Laden is not heard of, but he seems irrelevant, as the international jihadist movement has established its own momentum. Expect America's involvement in the Afghan war to take a dangerous twist in the next chapter.
Another near certainty for the region is a change in political leadership in Israel. A Likud win in Israel's elections raises the possibility of renewed war with Hezbollah and military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran will achieve nuclear capability in the next two years, according to Israeli intelligence, so war may be inevitable regardless of who leads Israel. The long delayed full scale invasion of Gaza will probably happen as well, regardless of who leads Israel. Linked to America's destiny closely, the relationship between new leaders in both countries, will be critical. Presidents have regularly been well received in Israel, mostly because the said President has gone out of his way to appear pro Israeli. But Israeli public opinion is unsure about Obama and what approach he will adopt. A new US-Israel relationship could emerge, but many have argued it will slip back into the traditional mould.
Some slightly less certain but equally important possibilities for the region revolve around economic factors. The region's wealth has clearly developed at a rapid rate, but now with this growth, influence might follow. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar are the powerhouses using oil wealth to not only expand international economic influence - the rise of sovereign wealth funds being the main vehicle - but through significant investment in education and technology - the region is developing its own soft power. Dubai is a centre for experimental architecture, science and medicine research - providing an intellectual export to go with the energy one. Talent may also be drawn into the region, lured by advanced educational institutions flushed with investment and superior facilities.
So that's what could be reasonably expected for the next few years, there are certainly more probabilities and there will also be the odd surprise. Could Syria finally come in from the cold? Could a democratic forces gain momentum in say Lebanon or Pakistan? Another rollercoaster chapter for the region. But in this next stage, events will also lead to new thinking.
The mistakes and misadventures of the last seven years have now spurred a new wave of intellectual output. How the West should interact with the Middle East (and the rest of the world for that matter) is analysed in some new groundbreaking works. Robert Kagan, neoconservative writer and adviser to John McCain, in his new book The Return of History and the End of Dreams, sees the Middle East being absorbed into a larger geopolitical game with the democratic West facing the autocratic East - Russia and China. The extremist forces in the region dedicated to tradition that reject modernity, argues Kagan, such as Al-Qaeda and Iranian Mullahs, simply cannot win. Neither the outside world with such a vested interest in the region, nor the peoples themselves, will allow this backward path to happen.
On an even broader scale, Philip Bobbitt's Terror and Consent sets out the landscape for the 21st century, as states divide between those of terror or consent. With this new paradigm must also follow a re-evaluation of the war on terror to date, which has been misconceived and mismanaged. Islam is not the issue but rather shifts in how states and warfare are linked. Like Kagan, the Middle East is a focus for the 21st century conflict, but certainly will not be the sole arena. But critically America's role in the region and the world may be diminishing - the view of Fareed Zakaria in his book The Post American World. The threats that have emerged from the Middle East, argues Zakaria, are essentially exaggerated. Once American policymakers realise this, they will see the folly of involvement in the region.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Lebanon - the enemy within
The recent talks between Lebanon's leaders in Doha has merely ushered in a lull, and whether a civil war or long uneasy ceasefire follows is an unanswerable and complex question. The urgent gathering that followed Hezbollah's mock coup last month has presented an uneasy calm - requiring conflict management not conflict resolution. This was the consensus at the Frontline club's panel discussion on Lebanon's future last week. Not only is Lebanon's complex internal fabric highly flammable, but an explosion of violence could equally be provoked by its neighbours Syria and Israel and the more distant meddlers Iran and the United States. A country that is only slightly smaller than Jamaica and Kosovo, is a battleground for all the major players in the region. Like Kosovo Lebanon is on the fault line. Christian post colonial remnants battles the emerging so-called Shia crescent. Cutting across this split are Lebanon's Sunni population still influenced by Syria and an anxious Israel seeking to protect its northern border at all costs. The root of this current imbroglio could be the inconclusive Taif agreement in 1989, Israel's invasion in 1982, the initial eruption of violence in 1975 or the anachronistic overtly confessional constitution drawn up in 1943. But the history - although critical - will come later.
All sides made concessions at Doha, including Hezbollah. But the Shia movement ultimately received what it wanted, negotiating from a position of strength, gaining greater cabinet representation. The fighting that erupted in May and the following deal proved several facts. That the Lebanese army is no match for Hezbollah; the neighbouring powers, especially Syria, do not wish for civil war; that the United States is a peripheral player in this crisis; and the Arab states for once invested political capital in a Middle East peace agreement. So crisis averted and some stability might be on the horizon. But the possibility of violence is there on all fronts.
Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organization by the US, Israel obviously, and many other western states, has real political representation. Unacceptable to the US and funded by Iran, Hezbollah presents Lebanon's gravest problem. That is a fact, regardless of whether you are pro or anti Hezbollah. The movement has rearmed to its levels pre 2006 war, its support has galvanised and returned. The spark for the recent trouble was an incursion against Hezbollah's communications network and the sacking of an airport security chief with alleged links to the group. This network - revealed in its full extent last month - shows the grip Hezbollah has on Lebanon and its position as a state within a state. Dominance in the Bekaa valley and the coastline puts them in a strong strategic position. It also raises the vision among western intelligence agencies of Iranian presence on the eastern Mediterranean.
Israel's fear of Iranian influence on its northern border only grows as Hezbollah strengthens. Historians may debate whether Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon created Hezbollah or whether a Shia political force would inevitably have developed, given the Shias lowly position in Lebanese society. But Iranian influence put resistance to Israel in south Lebanon or in all of historic Palestine at the heart of Hezbollah's ideology. This opposition led to a painful guerrilla war in the 1990s until Israel's withdrawal in 2000. The 2006 war was merely a messy draw and the long awaited replay will most likely be even more inconclusive and bloody. Especially as both Iran and the United States have reiterated their material support on both sides.
The outcome in Lebanon will depend on whether US-Iranian relations improve. With a new presidency next year, things could improve. Then again, Lebanon like Iraq could be the spark for the much feared wider showdown between America, Iran and Israel. But for Lebanon, local issues are always more important than the geopolitical games it seems to be dragged into. The concept of Lebanon needs re-examination, its constitution is long overdue reforming and political flexibility must be paramount for leaders on all sides. Bottom up solutions as always. The Lebanese are tired of the Middle East's political roundabout. Hezbollah's presence is problematic, but despite Israel and America's opposition, they have shown that they are impossible to ignore.
All sides made concessions at Doha, including Hezbollah. But the Shia movement ultimately received what it wanted, negotiating from a position of strength, gaining greater cabinet representation. The fighting that erupted in May and the following deal proved several facts. That the Lebanese army is no match for Hezbollah; the neighbouring powers, especially Syria, do not wish for civil war; that the United States is a peripheral player in this crisis; and the Arab states for once invested political capital in a Middle East peace agreement. So crisis averted and some stability might be on the horizon. But the possibility of violence is there on all fronts.
Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organization by the US, Israel obviously, and many other western states, has real political representation. Unacceptable to the US and funded by Iran, Hezbollah presents Lebanon's gravest problem. That is a fact, regardless of whether you are pro or anti Hezbollah. The movement has rearmed to its levels pre 2006 war, its support has galvanised and returned. The spark for the recent trouble was an incursion against Hezbollah's communications network and the sacking of an airport security chief with alleged links to the group. This network - revealed in its full extent last month - shows the grip Hezbollah has on Lebanon and its position as a state within a state. Dominance in the Bekaa valley and the coastline puts them in a strong strategic position. It also raises the vision among western intelligence agencies of Iranian presence on the eastern Mediterranean.
Israel's fear of Iranian influence on its northern border only grows as Hezbollah strengthens. Historians may debate whether Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon created Hezbollah or whether a Shia political force would inevitably have developed, given the Shias lowly position in Lebanese society. But Iranian influence put resistance to Israel in south Lebanon or in all of historic Palestine at the heart of Hezbollah's ideology. This opposition led to a painful guerrilla war in the 1990s until Israel's withdrawal in 2000. The 2006 war was merely a messy draw and the long awaited replay will most likely be even more inconclusive and bloody. Especially as both Iran and the United States have reiterated their material support on both sides.
The outcome in Lebanon will depend on whether US-Iranian relations improve. With a new presidency next year, things could improve. Then again, Lebanon like Iraq could be the spark for the much feared wider showdown between America, Iran and Israel. But for Lebanon, local issues are always more important than the geopolitical games it seems to be dragged into. The concept of Lebanon needs re-examination, its constitution is long overdue reforming and political flexibility must be paramount for leaders on all sides. Bottom up solutions as always. The Lebanese are tired of the Middle East's political roundabout. Hezbollah's presence is problematic, but despite Israel and America's opposition, they have shown that they are impossible to ignore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)