|
Main
Blair, New Labour, the Special Relationship and the Entente Cordiale
Well, it's that time again - as the year 2007 draws to a close, we look to the future. And one thing is for sure: the primary foci of this weblog, Pakistan and China, were hardly out of the news this year and won't be in 2008 either.
 For China especially, 2008 is the crunch year. The Olympics have acquired a kind of existential significance, and their success or failure have become intertwined with China's contemporary sense of its national identity.
Unfortunately, I can't see the games being the resounding success that the CCP hopes for. Chinese athletes will probably haul in the most medals, but with the enormous pressures upon them there will inevitably be doping scandals. Other athletes will scorn the terrible pollution; tourists will be messed about, pushed, shoved and spat around (most Beijingers will behave admirably, but it'll still be the negatives that get remembered); and journalists will lament the restrictions on free reporting. Few Chinese yet realise how things will be perceived, and it will come as a shock.
Most of all, this most political of sporting events will inevitably be deeply politicised. There will be incidents: medal-winners standing up for Tibet, Taiwanese declarations, perhaps even Uyghur violence. Expect 888 to be a very interesting moment in the definition of the new China.
Turning to Russia, there Putin will remain in control, despite the appointment of a new president in Medvedev - little more than a deputy, really, But I have confidence in Putin: he is not stupid, and will not wish relations with the EU and NATO to deteriorate further. Things were getting silly, what with all this missile defence rubbish, not to mention Litvinenko and Lugovoi, and in 2008 Russia will attempt to repair some of the damage - though not with Britain, who will be the main losers.
Meanwhile, it will be a period of reflection for the EU itself, as the member states attempt to digest the implications of the Lisbon Treaty. Expect at least one ratification to fail.
 There is at least reason to positive about the Middle East. Iraq has calmed in 2007, though of course it's not the end by any stretch of the imagination. We are also thankfully unlikely to see action against Iran either. Bush desperately needs a positive legacy to speak of, so with elections in full swing at home he and his cronies may attempt at least to broker a compromise solution. Does he have what it takes? We shall see.
But there are clearly going to be fireworks in Pakistan. Far too early to tell how things will pan out, but it probably won't be good. This writer is already predicting a Balkanisation of the country: that may be going too far, but with the conflicts in NWFP and Balochistan likely to gain pace as society fractures after the elections then the prospects for stability are low. Great map too - worth examining to see what it suggests about Iran and Iraq and all
It is almost certainly the end of the road for Musharraf, and with Bhutto gone there will be a power vacuum. Power vacuums mean conflict, as we have seen in Iraq. But the West and India have meddled enough in Pakistan - it is up to them.
 On the back of the BBC's excellent analysis of the Bush administration's failure on Iraq, 'No Plan, No Peace' comes a similar analysis from The Economist. The essence of both is that Cold War thinking is useless in the modern era.
It's hard to summarise two hours of BBC documentary, but the essence was this: the US didn't have a plan for the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and while the British had deep misgivings they failed to make an impact. Memorable moments include: the admission that the only intelligence on Iraqi culture came from the Lonely Planet; the discovery that orders for the aftermath had been copied directly from the Marshall Plan ("the only currencies shall be the US Dollar and the Reichsmark"); and the description of Rumsfeld's deputy as "the dumbest m****f***** I've ever met". Timeless comedy, were it not so tragic.
There needs to be a realisation in the corridors of power that the days of pitched battles and supremacy by superior firepower are gone. That was true in Vietnam, and arguably as far back as the Battle of Jutland. What matters is intelligence and boots on the ground - not soldiers brainwashed in bootcamp but educated professionals able to understand and adapt to the alien culture around them. No amount of technology can replace that. After all, the true weapon of mass destruction is the AK-47.
The reluctance of politicians to accept that this is the true 'Revolution in Military Affairs' is saddening. Rumsfeld's assumption was that a light force could take Saddam out in a matter of weeks, which was correct: but this did not dovetail well with his deeply flawed assumption that everything would be fine afterwards. The surge does appear to be working, but it would have been better in 2003 than now, after thousands have died, the country in chaos and Iran is in the ascendency. You need lots of well-worn boots, not a few shiny new hi-tech weapons.
Armies of the future | Brains, not bullets | Economist.com
The “transformation” advocated by Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush's first defence secretary, envisaged that the armed forces would be slimmed down and money invested in “smart” weapons, reconnaissance systems and data links. Speed, stealth, accuracy and networks would substitute for massed forces. The army's idea of its “future warrior” was a kind of cyborg, helmet stuffed with electronic wizardry and a computer display on his visor, all wirelessly linked to sensors, weapons and comrades. New clothing would have in-built heating and cooling. Information on the soldier's physical condition would be beamed to medics, and an artificial “exoskeleton” (a sort of personal brace) would strengthen his limbs.
The initial success in toppling first the Taliban in Afghanistan and then Saddam Hussein in Iraq seemed to vindicate such concepts. But the murderous chaos in Iraq, and the growing violence in southern Afghanistan, have shown that America is good at destroying targets, and bad at rebuilding states. Firepower is of little use, and often counter-productive, when the enemy deliberately mingles among civilians.
Well, Canada is doing a good job too but the Yanks are basically making things worse for ISAF. Below the BBC's Paul Wood summarises the commons defence committee's report on operations in Afghanistan. They can be summarised even further into one point - lack of resources.
Basically, in an age when deaths overseas have a direct impact on the ballot box, Afghanistan is proving the inefficacy of our NATO allies. Every military death is tragic, but the unwillingness of the other European nations to allow their troops to do the jobs they are supposed to do simply makes life more difficult and dangerous for the Brits and Canucks. There is no point deploying the military if you are not going to put them in harm's way with all the kit they need to support them.
Secondly, the reason ISAF is there is to establish security so as to create the conditions for development - and thus general happiness and well-being in Afghanistan. That's the greatest obstacle to Talibanisation, not armed action. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude seems to be that development should be left to the NGOs. In fact there are few worse people to do the job. NGOs exist simply to fulfil narrow and often irrelevant single issues eg. introducing women's theatre groups to towns where there's no running water. What Afghanistan really needs is big money and big business with the backing of Western governments.
Do the job properly or not at all. Put the cash in, put the kit in and put the people in. And this is a defining moment for Europe. Does it really have a role in the wider world, or is it content to let the 'Stan slip back into total anarchy? It would probably take Pakistan with it, and now that the GWOT has kicked off, the existence of a revived black hole full of terror training camps would have grave consequences for Europe's own domestic security.
If the battle in Afghanistan is lost, the war will be fought in the streets of Londonistan instead.
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Afghanistan warning decoded
1. There are too few troops on the ground to win.
If the mission is to succeed, says the committee, it will require a commitment of size and strength greater than the international community is "willing to acknowledge, let alone to make."
2. If we are not exactly losing, we are not winning either.
The committee said: "Violence is increasing and spreading to the relatively peaceful Kabul and the northern provinces."
3. Too many Afghan civilians are being killed.
The committee said: "Civilian casualties undermine support for (the Nato force) Isaf and the Afghan government and fuel the insurgency, further endangering our troops."
4. There are still not enough British helicopters to do the job.
"UK helicopter operations in Afghanistan are not sustainable at the present intensity."
5. Some of our Nato allies are leaving us in the lurch.
"The reluctance of some Nato countries to provide troops for the Isaf mission in Afghanistan is undermining Nato's credibility and also Isaf operations."
6. You can't fight the Taleban and opium at the same time.
The coalition's strategy lacks "clarity and coherence". "Uncertainty among Afghans about Isaf's role in poppy eradication puts UK forces at risk."
7. The Afghan security forces are a disappointment - some useless, some corrupt, some actually working against us.
"Police failure and corruption alienate support for the government of Afghanistan and add to grievances which fuel the insurgency." Even the Afghan army "are some way off operating independently".
8. So the exit strategy has problems, as in Iraq.
"We recommend that the government clarify its planning assumptions for the UK deployment to Afghanistan and state the likely length of the deployment beyond the summer of 2009."
9. The media war isn't going well, either.
"The Taleban is ahead in the information campaign. The government (must)...co-ordinate more effectively the presentation of Isaf's objectives and the way in which developments in Afghanistan are reported."
Authoritative figures such as Lords Inge and Ashdown have reiterated the fact that Britain is in the 'Stan for the long haul. Their foreboding does smack of the 'domino effect', but the danger in Pakistan is more real than it was in Southeast Asia back in the '60s. The battle of Las Masjid is testament to that. And if both Afghanistan and Pakistan succomb to Islamism, then the potential for a stream of trained-up bombers heading for the Piccadilly line multiplies fivefold.
The Lords are also correct to identify a double problem - NATO's lack of coordination with the US forces in country and lack of long-term development. Development can only come with security in place, goes the theory, though I wonder if anyone has ever tried promoting development and waiting for the security situation to calm down as progress is made.
Lastly, Iraq. The Brits look like pulling out of Iraq and leaving it to the Americans: the other side of the deal should be an American withdrawal from Afghanistan. That way, NATO can attempt to deal with Afghanistan - which is certainly not a hopeless case - without American impediments, and America can be left to its deserved fate in Iraq.
Generals' warning on Afghanistan | World | The Observer
Ashdown told The Observer that Afghanistan presented a graver threat than Iraq.
'The consequences of failure in Afghanistan are far greater than in Iraq,' he said. 'If we fail in Afghanistan then Pakistan goes down. The security problems for Britain would be massively multiplied. I think you could not then stop a widening regional war that would start off in warlordism but it would become essentially a war in the end between Sunni and Shia right across the Middle East.'
Update: Things just went from bad to worse. The fates of Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably linked, and one could even go so far to say that the Durand Line is no real border - they are one and the same problem.
Events in Islamabad over the last few weeks have now provoked the Taliban sympathisers in Waziristan to relinquish their tenuous truce - an added headache for both Musharraf and NATO. What chance is there of a NATO intervention within Pakistan proper?
I've been thinking this for quite a while, and looks like Gordon has been too. The essential problem with the Global War on Terror (GWOT) is that it is not actually a war. 'War' implies some kind of competition for territory and resources; even the Cold War was stretching the point, being as it was an economic and ideological conflict fought for real only by proxy.
The thing is that, once you have got into the 'war' mindset, your approach to the situation is defined by it. Military commanders throughout the world are obsessed with retaining a warfighting capability - MBTs, carrier groups and suchlike that project power over national borders. But the situation we are facing now is not about national borders. Terrorists simply cannot be fought with conventional military forces. Even guerilla armies can't be beaten this way - look at Vietnam.
What the US needs to do is acknowledge that there are two ways to defeat terrorism - through both hard power and soft power. The hard power part is about eliminating those terrorists who are an immediate threat, either through small tactically-inserted special forces teams working overseas or via intelligence and policing within home territory. Wading in with tanks and Apache helicopter gunships will simply create alienation and more terrorists, something the Israelis too have yet to cotton on to. The soft power part is about tackling the warped ideologies that fuel terrorism, which in turn are inspired by disenfranchisment and economic or social deprivation.
It's the classic speak-softly-big-stick argument, but I see little evidence that force structures and governmental foreign policy apparatus are being adapted to meet the moderm world. With the military brass - not to mention the defence industry and the trade union lobbies - eager to obtain and supply hugely-expensive power projection platforms, the real need is overlooked. Yes, of course retain a warfighting capability - but realise that a small nation such as the UK is unable to fight a real war larger than a Falklands/Sierra Leone scale without US assistance. Hold on to what we need to stay militarily viable, but spend the rest on restructuring the surveillance, intelligence and development side of the equation - all of which the military could still turn its hand to and prove its usefulness.
Language and terrorism | Don't mention the GWOT | Economist.com
To speak of a “global war on terror” is over-simple. Shortened to the acronym GWOT, it conflated the military campaign against al-Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors in Afghanistan in 2001 with the war two years later to overthrow Saddam Hussein, an old foe who almost certainly had nothing to do with September 11th. That Iraq is a magnet for al-Qaeda is the result of the invasion of Iraq, not its cause. GWOT also implies, wrongly, that there exists a military solution to a problem that for a few countries (eg, Afghanistan) requires a co-ordinated nation-building effort but for most demands patient police and intelligence work. “War” should be the exception, not the focus of the effort against terrorists.
The inevitable reams of analysis on the three bomb attacks in the UK once again miss the point. While there's no denying that there is a large and well-funded network known as Al-Qaeda - which is certainly still in existence notably in the Afghan-Pakistan border area, Iraq and doubtless many other countries in the Muslim world and the West - Al-Qaeda in itself is not really the threat any more.
The incompetence of the June plots indicates that the perpetrators were effectively 'freelancing' more than anything. They could well be a bunch of disparate people with a point to make about Britain's foreign policy - not even necessarily 'Islamists' as is widely assumed, though quite probably disgruntled about the fate of Muslims in the wider world. Had they been 'linked to Al-Qaeda' as the newspapers would love to report, there would have been two symptoms:
1. A greater sophistication of techniques and materiels, and a willingness to die;
2. A greater chance of detection prior to the attacks being carried out.
The truble with freelancers is that, without financial or organisational links to known terror networks, they are that much harder to detect. Intelligence needs a starting point somewhere, and one lead leads to more which lead to more. The readiness of the press and public to assume that all terrorists are somehow 'linked to Al-Qaeda' diminishes the significance of what is going on. These guys are working independently, and though this means greater incompetence it also means they are much harder to find in time.
Comment is free: Strings of terror are knotted internally
Sadly, their lack of professionalism is not necessarily heartening. We know already that the al-Qaida hard core of Osama bin Laden and the few dozen senior militants around him has been seriously degraded in recent years. Experienced, competent bomb-makers are now few and far between.
However, instead there are scores - if not hundreds - of young men who have been radicalised by al-Qaida's propaganda. Al-Qaida has traded competence and discipline for resilience and dispersion. Both are effective in their way. The threat has evolved but remains relatively constant - ie severe.
China, Pakistan team up on energy | csmonitor.com
"I think most security experts are looking at this very closely because this is the closest access point China has to the Persian Gulf," says Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington. "I don't know that this is something the US particularly likes."
The article concentrates mainly on the US perspective:
Given the energy game's high stakes, some wonder if Gwadar will set off alarm bells in Washington. Last April, while hosting the China-Pakistan Energy Forum in Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf was asked as much by a visiting delegate. But to a roar of applause, he quickly deflected the question: "I do not care about pressure from major powers. If Pakistan suffers pressure from certain major powers, I believe China will come forward to help us apply pressure on the other side."
Still, the opening of Gwadar is indicative of how China's largesse in Pakistan is coming into open competition with the US – and how that could alter the region's political landscape.
Apparently, it's all about the money - China has promised $12bn to Pakistan, while the US offers only a paltry $6bn. Who's your daddy, especially in the energy game?
 For all the talk of liberalization and the gradual opening of Chinese society, at the moment it appears that censorship is growing worse. The latest clampdown has been on foreign press distributing news and pictures within China without Xinhua's permission (ie. censorship).
Todays reports in The Guardian and Asia Times Online are in stark contrast to a recent Economist article, 'We'll Jolly Well Say What We Want To'. Do that now, says The Guardian, and you risk censorship, investigation arrest, beatings or imprisonment.
There seems a case for the idea that China is spring cleaning in anticipation of the 2008 Olympics:
The Chinese government has crammed together a series of controversial trials, arrests and policies, presumably in the hope of getting critical overseas coverage out of the way in time for the Olympics in 2008 and an important Communist party congress next year.
Last month, the three court cases with the highest international profile of the past two years were settled in little more than a week. A blind activist, Chen Guangcheng, was sentenced to four years in prison, a New York Times assistant, Zhao Yan, to three years, and a Straits Times correspondent, Ching Cheong, five years.
The official statements are notable for their disingenuous tone:
Arriving in London for an official visit, Premier Wen Jiabao said he believed foreign news agencies in China would abide by Chinese laws, though he also added that the country would ensure the free flow of financial information.
In Beijing, Qin Gang, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said: "The regulation is to standardize the release of news ... and to protect the intellectual-property rights of the foreign news agencies ... The release of the regulation is a demonstration of the spirit of the rule of law ... China is a country ruled by law. There is no absolute freedom in any country."
Lucky that financial information is unrestricted, since anything that curbs economic growth is a definite no-no; even luckier that intellectual property will be respected - I'm sure Xinhua won't be tempted to plagiarise anything at all.
All this being said, with Wen meeting a lame-duck Blair weakened by recent political wranglings, these issues will certainly not be addressed during the current visit - if ever.
Guardian story below.
Continue reading "Clampdown on Free Speech in the Name of Free Speech" »
 Tory leader David Cameron, as always endearingly fluffy, has drafted an editorial on his policy towards India. He's even blogging his current trip (oh how modern of you, David, well done) complete with YouTube-style videos. Of course it's a barefaced swipe for the ''ethnic vote'', but note the flipside of the coin that Cameron is handing us here:
Our special relationship with America has been forged through a shared past and a shared understanding of the world. And now, in the 21st century, as the world's centre of gravity moves from Europe and the Atlantic to the south and the east, I believe it is time for Britain and India to forge a new special relationship, to meet our shared challenges in this new era of international affairs.
All well and good, but India isn't going to protect our security or economies in the way that the US has for the last 60 years - it's a badly underdeveloped country with vast problems of its own. Yes, we must recognise the shift in power from the West to the East - India and China - but we must also acknowledge the practicalities.
Otherwise, Cameron is nicely on message:
For most of the past half century we in the west have assumed that we set the pace and we set the global agenda. Well now we must wake up to a new reality. We have to share global leadership with India, and with China. And we must recognise that India has established beyond argument, through its economic and political success, its right to a seat at the top table. India, one of the great civilisations of the world, is truly great again.
India must be greatly enjoying the wave of sycophancy that's headed its way this year, but the fact remains that in terms of international leadership it's China we have to look to. India has far less influence over the region than the PRC; if anything, it has effectively been encircled by it.
In his rhetoric on the environment and globalisation, the man does have a lot of platitudes up his sleeve, but his conclusion is dead-on:
In an ever more connected world, we cannot afford to ignore the forces that are shaping it.
Reprinted below.
Continue reading "Cuddly Cameron in India" »
 Faith and the State
Remarque Institute (NYU) and ISHSS (UvA) US-Europe Public Forum 2006
A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.
Edmund Burke, 1729-1797
Be afraid. If recent press reports are to be believed, Europe – and Britain in particular – is positively crawling with Islamic terrorists, bent on death and destruction in the name of Jihad.
The media tends to exaggerate, of course, but after the uncovering of plans to destroy 10 aircraft in mid-air, the discovery of terror training camps and the arrests of Al-Qaeda commanders, no-one can deny that something is going on. What lies at the roots of this militancy among Europe’s Muslims, and what, if anything, can be done to assuage it?
Download Word file or read main text below. (See Word file for bibliography and footnotes).
This essay is the joint winner of the US-Europe Public Forum 'Faith and the State' competition 2006. You can also read the original blog entry from which the paper was extended.
Continue reading "A Taste of Reality and the State of Things to Come" »
OK, there's a problem. What do we do about it?
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Analysis: Taking on extremists
The 7 July London bombings have been a catalyst for the emergence of a class of new, young, professional British Muslim leaders. But the fact is that none of them can say with any certainty that they are in any position at present to contain radicalisation.
A year on, and in the wake of the latest anti-terrorism raids, many communities feel increasingly under the spotlight, labelled and viewed with suspicion. Many young Muslims feel that for every genuine suspect picked up, there are others being criminalised for having brown skin and a beard.
However, the difference from 12 months ago is that almost all community leaders admit that radicalisation is a big problem - although they remain divided over where it comes from and why it exists.
 Just when I thought I was done with my essay on faith and the state, a paper which concentrates on the relationship between terrorism and the political alienation of European Muslims - especially Pakistani-origin young men in Britain - along comes this:
The most disconcerting aspect of the foiled terror plot is that British-born Muslims are its chief suspects. At least that was what initial reports have suggested. If true, it underscores the reality that British Muslims - especially the young generation that is as British as fish and chips or the game of cricket - should be integrated into British society, not just economically, but also politically and culturally. This is something that the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has failed to accomplish. A plan of action in that direction is sorely needed.
Writing in Asia Times Online the defence consultant Ehsan Ahrari is almost bang on the same wavelength as me when it comes to this. The key to preventing similar attempts of this nature is to get these guys into the political mainstream in some way that will let them be heard without taking recourse to violence.
He notes that the spin about delinking the pursuit of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is pure bunk; it's these two factors that make young Muslims so angry. He also points out that alienation from the mainstream, both cultural and political, is a major source of dissent.
However, the author then begins to drift off track:
There is little doubt that all three themes explaining Muslim alienation, frustration and even anger are valid and generally accurate. However, the root cause of their alienation may be directly related to their continued economic marginalization - especially related to a general absence of upward economic mobility among Muslims in most Western societies, with the United States being an exception - as well as the unwillingness of Muslims to come out of their self-created cultural cocoons.
While some Muslims in Britain are undoubtedly economically marginalised, this is partly down to them. If the Indians and Chinese can make it then why can't they? There is an element of choice in there - it's not just racism and victimisation.
Ahrari does go on to focus upon this, and lays the blame squarely at the feet of foreign Islamic instructors who have no concept of the societies in which the young men have to live:
When Muslim youngsters are exposed to such sources of religious education, no wonder they evolve frameworks of reference of their own that are characterized by rigidity, cultural chauvinism and a lack of tolerance for deviation from strict Islamic precepts. What also reinforces that frame of reference is the fact that those youth see their parents remaining culturally separate from Western society. This may have nothing to do with any feelings of alienation or contempt. More often than not, immigrants are too busy making ends meet and have little time for anything else.
Thus there's a combination of factors; the external geopolitical ones; the uneasy contrast between East and West; and the rigidity of some interpretations of Islam. It's a recipe for disaster:
Add to these frames of reference of alienation and religious intolerance the highly contentious political issues of the era after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, when Islam is under constant scrutiny and criticism and is frequently a target of derisive verbal assault, and you have the making of a person who, if he is not a potential recruit for al-Qaeda, has ample sympathy for it.
The author's solution, however, smacks of 're-education' and all the Orwellian undertones that brings with it. I fear that that won't work, and for many of Britain's young Muslims the damage has already been done.
Continue reading "Faith in the State" »
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan arrests in 'bomb plot'
Pakistan has made a number of arrests in connection with an alleged UK plot to blow up planes flying to the US.
"There were some arrests in Pakistan which were co-ordinated with arrests in the UK," said Tasnim Aslam, spokeswoman for Pakistan's foreign ministry.
Pakistan had played a very important role in the investigation, she added.
 In this case British Home Secretary Dr John Reid's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter.
The problem is: how does one differentiate between a true terrorist group and an armed resistance movement attempting to secure self determination under the provisions of the UN Charter? It's a delicate balance indeed. Perhaps it would be more useful to examine the objectives of the groups in question as well as their actions and doctrine.
It's also interesting to note the underlying political motivations of Dr Reid's naming of the Baluchistan Liberation Army and Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan as organisations to be banned. Good relations with Pakistan and Turkey are no doubt also on the British government's mind.
In 1999, Blair and Clinton effectively supported the Kosovo Liberation Army, which could be seen by some as a terrorist group: same goes for the EU's continued relations with Fatah. So there's an element of hypocrisy too.
It's interesting to see the Government of Balochistan website's response. After swiftly condemning terrorism - fascinatingly, the organisation is based in Jerusalem and purports to have friendly relations with Israel - the author goes on to draw some comparisons and make some suggestions:
BLA are freedom fighters who are involved in a "Guerilla Military Action" against the Iranian and Pakistani forces. They are fighting the "Baloch War of Independence" by attacking military forces, blowing up supply lines, destroying infrastructure, and damaging anything and everything that will incapacitate the Iranian and Pakistani government and its armed forces, and taking every measure to avoid civilian casualties. BLA is a resistance force, just like the Forces Fran�aises de l'Int�rieur (French Resistance Army) during World War II.
BLA is taking every measure to avoid any collateral damage. If your government may send a fact-finding mission to Iran and Pakistan to find out the activities of BLA, we are sure that they will declare them a non-terrorist organization. But, by banning BLA without investigating the ground realities is a decision made in haste.
Like the KLA, the BLA and its supporters seek to harness the power of the Internet in promoting their cause. Even the names are similar. It's a fine line.
Original Guardian report below.
Continue reading "One Man's Terrorist..." »
 Diplomacy at work again. Probably it'll provoke Hizbollah to continue doing their shit.
So, in the spirit of the academic study of international relations, if this is the language of political discourse then there are some things I too would like to add:
Hamas - you can stop doing this shit to boot. And Israel, for that matter. Get your shit together and just be friends.
North Korea and Iran, stop doing this nuclear weapons shit. It's really bad for regional stability, OK?
Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, just turn this shit in and live in peace for God's sake.
That goes for you too, Taliban. Get your shit out of here.
Meanwhile, America, lose that shit-for-soul Guantanamo Bay shit.
India and Pakistan - enough Kashmir shit already. Don't want to see any more of this blowing up trains shit. You Pakistani boys from Yorkshire had better give over this shit and all.
Burma - stop this shit and release Aung Saan Suu Kyi
You Islamic terrorist groups in Indonesia and the Phillipines can cease shitting with us as well.
Get over yourselves and stop this Taiwan shit, China. And forget about that Japanese shit too. It's just shit.
Orangemen, stop doing this shit in Northern Ireland. It just pisses everyone off and makes matters worse. Hurry up and die, Rev Paisley.
Russia, Chechnya, you know what's coming. I shit you not. And Uzbekistan, you'd better sort your shit out too over that massacre at Andijan.
Somalia, Sudan. Just stop this shit.
You and all, Columbia.
In fact, all of you, just stop this shit. Now.
Original Bush-Blair conversation below.
Continue reading "Stop Doing This Shit" »
 An opportunity may already have been lost. With Bush and Putin 'failing to agree' on Russia's entry to the WTO, inevitably there will be comebacks. After all, the G8 summit is being hosted in St Petersburg, and the onus is on Russia to assert its rising status.
And the issue is that old chesnut, energy security. With the WTO membership carpet pulled from beneath its feet, Russia today refused to sign the energy charter which would guarantee the reliable supply of energy to Europe. As the Ukraine discovered, Russia knows that it has a powerful economic and political weapon in its grasp, and there's no reason for it to let go.
Anyone who still thinks - or says - that oil is not a major issue on the global political agenda will, however, be corrected by this year's G8, notable for its straight talking:
"Energy is essential to improving the quality of life and opportunities in developed and developing nations," the leaders' statement said.
"Ensuring sufficient, reliable and environmentally responsible supplies of energy at prices reflecting market fundamentals is a challenge for our countries and for mankind as a whole," it added.
The statement comes after months of rising oil prices - including a new spike following the Israeli action in Lebanon.
That's the sharp end of it - you can't have energy security without political security, and last week it just got a whole lot worse. Thus the G8 summit is inextricably intertwined with events in the Middle East, from Israel and Lebanon to Iraq and Iran. It's not just an additional point of discussion, as is being reported - it's the main item on the menu.
Continue reading "Tit for Tat" »
 It was those words, delivered in the broadest of Yorkshire accents, that hit home most of all. They came from a young man just like me: almost exactly the same age; raised in Britain, the son of an immigrant from the subcontinent; well-educated and articulate. Yet Muhammed Sidique Khan was prepared to die and to kill for the most abstract of hatreds:
I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our driving motivation doesnt come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam - obedience to the one true God, Allah, and following the footsteps of the final prophet and messenger Muhammad. This is how our ethical stances are dictated.
Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.
Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight.
We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.
He could so easily have been myself; a twisted reflection from a world we still barely understand. The parallel universe of Jihad, Shar'ia, martyrdom and the AK-47, all served up for our consumption on prime time al-Jazeera.
A year on from the 7/7 bombings and thankfully there has been no repeat. It's no consolation for the families of the dead, but the attack could have been so much worse. Fortunately the second wave failed in a blur of incompetence. But as Khan's fellow bomber Shehzad Tanweer reminded us in a new video aired yesterday, it certainly isn't over:
What you have witnessed now is only the beginning of a series of attacks that will continue and increase in strength until you withdraw your soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq, and until you stop your financial and military support for America and Israel.
So where are these men - who justify the murder of random people by drawing tenous connections with participation in the democratic process and complicity with government foreign policy - going to come from? There's two answers. The first, and most obvious, is that they will come from within. But the second, and the most worrying, is that they will have been trained and indoctrinated where else but Pakistan.
Pakistan is becoming the new front in the War on Terror, taking the place that Afghanistan held before 9/11. There's plenty more Pakistani diaspora around, from Britain to Bahrain, and it's more easily accessible than Afghanistan was.
Yet by no means is Pakistan under control, and it's doubtful whether the ruling regime has a clue as to what is going on in 80% of the country.
The BBC takes an in-depth look at this and related issues and asks whether or not the bombers were linked to what is nebulously termed 'al-Qaeda'. The conclusion is that indeed someone in Pakistan was directing the bombers, and this has implications for the War on Terror in general:
...in recent months Western intelligence agencies have begun shifting away from the notion that al-Qaeda has largely become an ideology rather than a structured operation, to once again believing that there remains some capability for direct operational planning within al-Qaeda's leadership.
This denies the fact that whether or not al-Qaeda physically exists, it is both an organisation and an idea. It's this idea that inspired the bombers, not the organisation; and their action was a continuation and a reflection of this idea that no doubt will give it further power.
The group itself is becoming increasingly complex, and is intertwined with the many factions fighting for Islam or independence within Pakistan itself:
"There is very much an integration between the Pakistani jihadi community and al-Qaeda's leadership and I think this is the galaxy that spawned the 7 July bombings," explains Alexis Debat, a counter-terrorism expert.
"But it's very hard for investigators to find out where the Pakistani jihadi community stops and al-Qaeda starts. And it's much more difficult for the Pakistani government to go after the Pakistani jihadis."
The only thing that is certain is that of the hundreds of thousands of visitors to Pakistan each year, more than one of them will bring something back with them - a plan, a tactic, a mission. The only questions are when will they release it upon us, and will we catch them first?
Khan's entire speech and BBC story below.
Continue reading "We Are At War and I Am a Soldier" »
 The G8 finance ministers got together today for a preliminary meeting ahead of July's summit. At the top of the agenda, naturally, is energy security.
But that's boring. And something far more important got going on Friday. It's even bringing colour to the usually grey cheeks of The Economist.
...the comparison with the Olympics is striking. Think of all those robotic East German sprinters, Romanian gymnasts and Chinese swimmers churned out by state-backed programmes. By contrast, a winning football team needs not just athleticism but also a spark of creativity and style that cannot be manufactured by sport's central planners. Even taking drugs does not appear to be much help for footballers.
The World Cup is apolitical. The USA will probably be crap again. China and Russia aren't even in it. The superpowers are Brazil and a clutch of developing and declining countries.
Who will be this year's heroes? We shall see...
Continue reading "The Beautiful Games Begin!" »
|
