|
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!" »
 Or 14 "observations" on counter-insurgency, in this case.
Quite a few years ago, a British Army TV recruiting campaign veered away from the glamorisation of military life and served up something else altogether. In one ad, the viewer was confronted with an angry African refusing to give soldiers access to his well. The officer removed his sunglasses and calmed the man with eye contact.
It was an example of the way we do things in Britain, and I remember my own officer once telling me to take off my shades one day at the range. "Only Americans wear those," he told me. The implication was: "And the American soldier doesn't understand how to get on with the civilian."
In retrospect it comes as no surprise that the US military did not have any knowledge about how to conduct an operation of the type it finds itself embroiled in today. How this is still possible after Vietnam, however, beggars belief. According to the BBC's Paul Reynolds:
...there was no such counter-insurgency doctrine in the US military as a whole when the invasion of Iraq was launched in early 2003. There was no expectation that one would be needed. The hope was for a quick war and a quick peace.
In the aftermath of Haditha, the US have belatedly turned to their UK allies for a bit of advice - and even to TE Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom, from which the title quote comes.
The author is careful to point out that the British are not perfect, but I'd still say that we are a lot better than the US when it comes to judicious use of "underwhelming force". Part of this is down to experience, but the rest of it is down to a different mindset.
With notable exceptions, on the whole the British soldier is disciplined and aware of the environment he is operating in. That means knowing a bit about the local culture and being able to communicate with the local people.
It's softly, softly catchee monkey out there. The Cold War is over - that's what force transformation was meant to be all about. No good charging around in your APCs all day, dressed in full kit, Ray-Bans on and rock music blaring. That's not how to win hearts and minds.
But if America is not a "learning culture", what's the point in telling them that?
Continue reading "Wearing Shades and Eating Soup With a Knife" »
 Maybe it's not the right analogy, but in the recent cabinet reshuffle Tony Blair has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. He has given Britain's international role a backseat and decided to concentrate instead on his own political survival.
Sacking the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, was not a good move. Straw was Home Secretary from 1997-2001 and headed the Foreign and Commonwealth office after that for five years. For all his faults, he was well known in international circles and had proved himself to be an effective diplomat in the trying circumstances of the post 9/11 world.
Britain is probably the only country that can restrain the US. None of the other UN Security Council members enjoy this 'special relationship'; indeed, France, Russia and China actively oppose the US on many issues.
They are not able to stop America hitting Iran. They will just veto it in the UN, stand back and watch the fireworks.
So why, of all times, sack Straw now, on the eve of crisis talks on Iran? His replacement Margaret Beckett is also an experienced politician but no-one is going to be able to just turn up for dinner at New York and make themselves heard. What the hell will she know about tackling Iran?
Blair has not done anyone any favours with this short-term barracking of political allies. He showed such promise in 1997, but like all politicians he has grown weak and arrogant. By reshuffling the cabinet to surround himself only with friends at this crucial moment, he shows that he no longer has Britain or the world's best interests at heart.
 So, if we already know that a UN resolution is going to be vetoed, why bother even drafting it?
The basic point of today's news is that a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter is being prepared to try to manage the Iran nuclear crisis. This follows the IAEA's report to the UN Security Council that Iran is breaking its obligations on the enrichment of uranium - confirmed by Iran itself.
The relevant part of the chapter is Article 41:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
However, as we read in The Guardian (also below), China and Russia will both veto any decision on actual sanctions. So what's the point?
There basically is none, other than as a face-saving measure for the US (and most likely its special friend, the UK). As long as the appearance of going the UN is kept up, then the US can later say "well, the UN was ineffective, so we had to go it alone".
There is zero chance that military action will be authorised under Article 42, but we all know it's going to happen eventually. This is the beginning of the diplomatic process of preparing the ground for the recriminations that will come later.
Continue reading "So the Point Is, Exactly?" »
You can't seperate them.
George Monbiot writes an eloquent article on this in Comment is Free. He doesn't really come up with any viable solutions, but his logic in arguing his point is sound.
Firstly, most countries are reliant on other regions - namely the Middle East, the Former Soviet Union and Central Asia - for their oil and gas supplies. There's lots of demand and less and less supply. So there's high competition, and it's a seller's market.
This gives them power over us. Russia, for example, had no qualms about cutting off the Ukraine's gas to make a political point (whether it would have the guts to do this to China, who knows).
So, we have to come up with alternatives. Hydrogen is the best answer at the moment, but currently hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels too and not from electrolysis.
There's the economic issue too:
But a hydrogen network will be viable only if it is cheap. According to a report by the US National Academy of Engineering, the wholesale price of hydrogen made from natural gas with carbon capture will, in "the future", be $1.72 (96p) per kilogramme; from coal, $1.45; and from electrolysis $3.93. In other words, if a hydrogen economy is to be taken seriously, the fuel has to be made from gas or coal, rather than by either wind turbines or nuclear generators.
Now, here is when his argument goes a bit wrong. It's too short term:
So it seems to me that a key environmental challenge, odd as this seems, is to ensure that gas has a future in the UK by making its supplies more secure. I don't mean invading Iran or sucking up to Saparmurat Niyazov. I mean increasing our storage capacity so that we cannot be held to ransom - in the short term at least - either by Gazprom or by the companies that control the flow through the interconnector.
Think long term and put the massive investment into creating realistic alternative energy - sorry, this means nuclear as well as wind farms. This will be economically painful in the short term, but in 2050 we'll be able to sit back and watch the rest of the west collapse.
Assuming China hasn't wiped our economies and the environment out by then already.
Continue reading "Energy Security and the Environment" »
 Another Bin Laden tape surfaced today, and the BBC offers a translation. Yes, OK, I'm guilty of it myself, but it's amazing how much interest the old duffer can still provoke, even three-and-a-half years after 9/11.
Osama Bin Laden is no longer a relevant figure. Whatever 'al-Qaeda' actually is, and whether or not he is still the nominal head of it, international Islamic terrorism has transcended his influence. Terrorists act more or less alone these days. They attack independently and with minimal supervision from the FBI's most-wanted. But for the need for finance and supplies, they would be outside the jurisdiction of all but the most local of groups.
And there have been few significant attacks since Madrid. Of course I wouldn't be saying this were I in Baghdad, but killing other Muslims isn't part of the strategy, I reckon.
Parts of Bin Laden's speech itself are notable for their twisting of logic, but that's propaganda for you. On Sudan:
One of the areas of gravest strife was western Sudan, where some differences among the tribesmen were used to trigger a ferocious war among them that consumes everything in its way, in preparation for sending Crusader forces to occupy the region and steal its oil under the cover of maintaining security there. It is a continuous Zionist-Crusader war against the Muslims.
Wrong. In fact Chinese and Malaysian companies hold the majority of the equity in Sudan's oil production.
The next paragraph also makes me wonder:
...you smile in our faces, saying: We are not hostile to Islam; we are hostile to terrorists, and we advocate peaceful coexistence and dialogue rather than a clash of civilizations. The reality belies their pronouncements, for the Western diplomats only seek dialogue for the sake of dialogue. They aim to deceive and anaesthetise us in order to buy time. They only want us to observe a truce.
Well done Osama for flicking through Huntingdon's book (I wonder if The Clash of Civilizations is available in Arabic?), but despite appearances the West is not really bent on destroying Islam. It would be more than happy to co-exist with Muslims, so long as it can buy their oil under favourable terms. That's the real point.
Go back to your cave, Osama (though I suspect that you're actually hiding in Pervez Musharraf's spare room) and leave us in peace. Leave the jihad to those who are actually out there fighting.
Update: Even Hamas and the Sudanese government don't want to know about this.
There again, there's always going to be someone who buys this stuff and goes out and acts upon it...
 Where does Britain stand - by the US or beside the EU? An answer to that today in the sale of BAE Systems' share of Airbus.
This is big business - big, big, big business. And the fact that BAE has sold in order to concentrate on the US defence market indicates a trend towards a general European pullout. Airbus is a flagship company if ever there was one.
As far as I know, BAE Systems no longer has any stakes in EADS, the pan-European company that will now fully own Airbus. With the French protesting against economic systems that might actually help them compete in the globalized economy, no wonder the Brits are getting cold feet. Having bought United Defence last year, BAE Systems now has its sights firmly set on the US.
But what does it mean for the EU? After last year's failed presidency, now that the glue of heavy industry has dried out it seems that the UK is drifting further and further away.
Continue reading "Bye Bye BAE-bus" »
 An interesting article by the admirable Max Hastings on Comment is Free.
I think two things have been lacking in the Bush / Blair Iraq policy. The first is honesty. Rather than spinning out the rhetoric on WMD, building upon zavaell's letter reproduced in the comments, our political leaders should should have said this:
"Iraq has the second largest known oil reserves in the world, and is bang in the middle of an unstable, strategically vital and oil-rich region.
"We are sorry, but as you all know the economies of the West are totally dependent on oil. If someone like Saddam gets his hands on WMD in the future, or gets away with anything funny like he did in 1991, we're stuffed.
"So we'd really better take him out while we have the chance. Unfortunately blood does have to be spilt for oil and we should have done it 12 years ago, really."
Not pretty, but at least it's honest. I think that voters may have appreciated this message more than than the one we actually got.
The second failure is in historical, political and strategic awareness, and it makes me wonder what the point of the US Army War College and other institutions is unless politicians listen to them.
I wasn't around around during the Vietnam war but I've read some books on it. That's been enough to teach me a few things about what can go wrong in a foreign war. I'm not saying I'm an expert but it seemed pretty obvious that the more the US forces alienated the local population then the stronger their enemies became.
It's not rocket science. Isn't there a library at the White House? Doesn't it contain some of these books and journals, A Bright Shining Lie for example? A lot of lives could have been saved had Bush and his people had simply studied history a bit harder and learnt from previous mistakes.
 Or is it?
The Sunday Telegraph today boasts this exclusive on 'secret' talks to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The authorities of course deny it.
Whether it's true or not, it does raise legitimate questions. It's clearly current policy - the 'Bush Doctrine', some call it - to pre-emptively strike countries you suspect to be developing WMD. Even Clinton did it back in the 1990s, so it's not just a neocon thing.
So what to do about Iran? Negotiation isn't going to work - unless, of course, there's a clear threat of force behind it. Perhaps the deliberate spreading of rumours (note how this follows very swiftly from Condi's visit to the UK) is a tool to nudge Ahmedinejad back to the table.
However, the consequences of actual attack on Iran would obviously be dire. It would justify what Islamists would call a defensive jihad. Iran would be able to retailiate against the US and UK on not one but two fronts - Iraq and Afghanistan - possibly in the shape not of MBTs and fighter planes but the far more troublesome supply of weapons and the insertion of guerrilla support for anti-Western factions.
It may be that Iran is already doing so, and hence an extra impetus for the threats.
On the other hand, Iran's impudence is a clear threat to US influence in the region. If Iran were to successfully develop a nuclear weapon, it would become a regional hegemon and thus would be in a far better position to negotiate on topics such as Israel, oil and pipeline routes.
Who'll blink first? If I were Ahmedinajad, I'd stand my ground, knowing that I'm already in more favour with my own voting public than either Bush or Blair - and, moreover, that any infraction on Iranian territory is going to enhance my support while it will inevitably weaken and even topple my enemies.
Your call, Condi.
Continue reading "April Fool, Iran" »
 A comment piece on the two worlds we live in - the Eurocentric western perception and the Asian century.
Is the West lost? Not yet. There's enough other people who realise that increasingly we are going to have to look at the east not as potential resources for exploitation but at best as partners and at worst as dangerous rivals.
The author Martin Jacques correctly identifies the key problem with this relationship: put very simply, we don't understand them:
It is difficult living in two worlds - especially when it is the world called home that is becoming more and more parochial and less and less able to understand the wider world. It is becalmed, bemused, defensive, increasingly introverted and fearful. But there aren't many people I can talk to about it - you see, not surprisingly they are part of the problem.
And he also realises that the Middle East is simply a distraction:
How are Americans going to react to their country's decline and the rise of China and India? At the moment they don't believe it could possibly happen. Despite the disgraceful mess they have made of Iraq, they are still gung-ho. They are still convinced it is the right of God's chosen people to boss the world. And 9/11, unilateralism, and the invasion of Iraq have hugely encouraged that.
I suspect, though, that it was all a huge historical miscalculation. Always beware your moment of triumphalism: such emotions are a poor steer on the future. And that future is not primarily about the Middle East, but east Asia...
Also take a look at the comments, this one for example:
I don't kid myself that China is free from virulent racism and nationalism. Racial epithets are commonly used (Westerners are "Big noses", KOreans are "pancake faces" and Japanese are "Little noses") and the language used about Africans is sometimes appalling. They can be very parochial and extremely nationalistic.
We shouldn't be surprised by this- we are all human beings and we share the same failings. In fact our common humanity means that we are prone to the same stereotyping and beliefs in our own superiority.
Jacques' big mistake is to assume that these are unique to Westerners or are uniquely bad in the West. Factually this is simply not true.
My own comment is below.
Continue reading "Worlds Apart" »
 Poverty in Africa gets Bob Geldof, Bono and a whole host of philanthropists, politicians and hairy Irish rockers prattling on about their plight. Today it's Asia's turn.
Here's the key sentence:
As well as being a human rights issue, it also raises fears of social instability.
Absolutely. In Africa, poverty is mainly a moral issue. They don't affect us all that much - they just fight among themselves and die of disease and starvation. Asia is something else. There, poverty is political.
That being said, I do also see the infamous 'hand of history' caressing Tony's shoulder again. He knows that he has only a year or so left in office and with the stigma of the Iraq debacle clinging to him he wants to ensure it's not the only thing he's remembered for.
Perhaps I'm being harsh; perhaps he really means it and should be commended for daring to step where other Western leaders fear to tread. There's certainly self-interest there, for Tony the man, Tony the politician and for Britain as a whole. But even so, something is better than nothing.
See also this editorial in The Guardian by Robin Greenwood of Christian Aid.
I remain suspicious and sceptical about NGOs, particularly religious charities, but he raises a couple of good points:
As the Asian century began, many thought macro-economic growth alone could end the continent's poverty once and for all, but those who still believe this need a reality check.
Asia is home to the majority of the world's population and to most of its poor. Of the planet's 1 billion people who exist on less than $1 (57p) a day, two-thirds live in Asia.
They are not just in fragile states such as Afghanistan, Burma or the freefall economies of former Soviet central Asia. Hundreds of millions still live in poverty despite the fashionable, much-reported success of the region's drivers: China and India.
The myth of a richer Asia is shattered in the slums and villages of these vast countries. Even with double-digit growth rates, the poor are getting poorer.
Precisely. If I forget everything else I saw in China and India, it the gap between rich and poor that will remain with me. Not only is it wrong, but it is dangerous. It needs to be addressed with vigour.
What we in the West do is frequently counterproductive - it is all very well to speak of 'lifting people out of poverty' but the responsibility ultimately lies with government.
Read the BBC article below, or click straight to the conference website.
Continue reading "Turning to Asia" »
 Condi's new buzzword, as elaborated upon in this lengthy Guardian special report (also below) is hijacked from DoD-speak: probably coined in this speech back in 2002, 'transformational' originally referred to a huge shift in military doctrine (including strategy and procurement) inspired by the end of the Cold War and then, of course, 9/11.
Now, according to Ms Rice, we need 'transformational diplomacy'.
Perhaps it's a shame that transformational diplomacy didn't precede transformational military doctrine, but better late than never. The article below elucidates on the new policy - which is basically a diplomatic paradigm shift of the West away from Europe (particularly the former Warsaw Pact) and towards - you've guessed it - Asia and the Middle East.
We can already see it in action:
Exemplifying the new American thinking, George Bush this week travelled to three countries at the heart of the new strategy. First stop was Afghanistan, to reassure its nascent yet fragile government that the US would not abandon its fight against the Taliban. Then India, a new economic powerhouse, which according to some is being courted as a counterweight to the rapidly expanding ambitions of China. And finally to Pakistan, another nuclear power, whose volatile regions provide a harbour for al-Qaida.
This attention to diplomatic in addition to pure military power perhaps reflects a small nudge to the left in US policy, and can only be read as a positive move.
However, Condi and George would do well to read a book by Harvard history professor, Niall Ferguson, named 'Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire'. It's reviewed here by The Guardian.
I admit, from a personal point of view as someone who's considering a Foreign Office career, that I wouldn't like a posting to Baghdad or Kabul, and certainly wouldn't want to take my loved ones there.
But for diplomats to have just one-year postings defeats the purpose of ambassadorial staff. Why send them home just as they gain contacts, linguistic skills and experience? Is America really in this for the long run?
It's exactly the kind of 'attention deficit' that Ferguson criticises:
...namely, the attention deficit that seems to be inherent in the American political system and that already threatens to call a premature halt to reconstruction in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not intended as a term of abuse. The problem is systemic: it is the way the political process militates against far-sighted leadership.
The US needs to realise that it's in this for well beyond the forseeable future. It can't just walk away from Iraq, Afghanistan, or China and India for that matter. Transformational diplomacy is all very well, but the first thing it needs to transform is itself.
Continue reading "Transformational Diplomacy" »
 So, is BP about to tie up with Sinopec? (BP is the UK's biggest company and is in the world top five - Sinopec is China's biggest oil company.) The Observer appears to think so, and there's some significant implications for both the UK and the PRC.
...a deal will put BP at a strategic advantage, making it the most significant overseas player in what will shortly be the most voracious energy-consuming country in the world. If successful with a tie-up, BP will rival Exxon as the world's biggest energy firm. For Sinopec, a deal with BP will help with its exploration activities - an area where it currently lags behind its two national rivals.
As a Brit who spent a while in China, I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand it will be mutually benficial for both nations, in economic and political terms. They'll get more oil. We'll make a lot of money.
On the other hand, however, I have to admit to concerns. PRC companies are notorious for 'leveraging' (ie. stealing) technology from their Western counterparts in all these JVs. So in the long run the UK will lose out. However, if BP transfers some clean fuel technologies to China, then despite the short-term loss then at least in the long term it'll help alleviate some of the problems of the environment.
As my students were forever telling me - every coin has two sides...
Continue reading "Tying Ourselves to China" »
 Quite apart from the privacy issues - which to me are clear cut - this Guardian story raises the question of what role, if any, the royals have in diplomacy.
I quite like Prince Charles, as I have stated before, but I do fear for his relevance in the modern world. Today's comments will probably only serve to isolate him further.
There's two problems that basically present themselves: Charles's right to privacy, as a private individual, which is more or less inviolable; and his right as the future king of the UK and commonwealth to comment on what he thinks.
Anyway, to the case in point. The Prince snubbed a Chinese banquet, as stated in the story, as a protest against the regime and also made a number of frank comments about the Chinese. Look at the strain and incredulity on his face as he meets Jiang Zemin during the 1997 handover of Hong Kong
Contrast this with the government's earnest pandering to China, to the extent of suppressing public protests during state visits.
Surely it is better this way; that, while the government attends to the realism of international diplomacy, we have in the Prince a voice of what many of us truly think?
Read the article below: Update - discussed here at length on The Guardian's Newsblog.
Continue reading "The Heir an Errant" »
I won't be around for a couple of weeks now, so won't be able to write much about this year's Davos meetings. Suffice it to say - it'll be worth coming back to.
Bye for now, and see you in Amsterdam in early February.
 Things got a lot colder in Europe today.
As if the 'sabotage' of pipelines, not to mention the deliberate cutting off of energy supplies by Russia in order to look after its own populace during the cold snap weren't enough, there was this rock aswell. A real rock star, one might say.
The ludicrous nature of the story was not lost on the British media who pounced on it like a pack of dogs. Basically, British agents were accused of planting surveillance systems in Moscow, in the shape of this... rock.
But it all highlights something that had until now been pretty much under the surface. Despite the Cold War fizzling out some time during the 90's, there are still those in London and Moscow who retain a Cold War mentality. That's not progress.
Moreover, the ongoing shenanigans involving Gazprom and Russia's immediate neighbours, not to mention other European nations that use Russian oil and gas, reminds of the essential interdependence of the international system.
It's a fragile state of affairs where, if Russia decides to cut off the energy, we lose out. Simple. They still may not be a superpower any longer, but they still wield considerable clout when it comes to resources.
The Bear, it appears, is back on the scene.
BBC Articles reprinted below.
Continue reading "Rocks, Pipelines and a Cold War on a Cold Day" »
 An official visit by the president of China today brings out all the usual mutual diplomatic wining, dining and back-slapping. But here in the UK, with its tradition of active outspokenness, it also brings out the protestors.
BBC News online covers this in depth, with quite a few news and analysis articles (links and excerpts below). The Guardian's newsblog is also on the ball. Most notably, another major UK 'broadsheet', The Independent, dedicates its whole front page to the agendas that will almost certainly not be dealt with during the visit.
It's a testament to the British media at its best today. It is not shying from the unsavoury aspects of China, far from it. But it is most interesting to note the reactions of two Chinese lads interviewed by the BBC:
Imperial College students Tony Wei and Guanhua Liu said they were all for greater ties between China and the UK, particularly because of China's growing economic power.
"Human rights in China are not that bad, these people [the Tibet campaigners] are out of order," said Tony. "I'm proud of my country and what it has achieved."
How did he feel that he was free to say this in Britain - but those across the way were not free to say what they wanted in China?
"Whether that is good or bad is difficult to say," he said after some thought.
This is in my view the most salient point. Students, activists and bearded lefties in Britain can chant and wave the Tibetan flag until they are blue in the face, as they probably did. But their actions are futile and irrelevant in the face of overwhelming indifference in China itself.
Continue reading "Hu in the UK" »
...to save the planet. Bob Hope and no hope. All resting on the man on the left.
 You've got to feel a little sorry for Prince Charles. Vilified in the media, stripped of all political power, stuck with the legacy of Princess Di and married to an absolute tugboat. But Charles does have an intelligent sensitivity about him, and the courage of his convictions. These, unfortunately, are not going to be enough.
Today the Prince, accompanied by Camilla on her first diplomatic level engagement, met with George and Laura at the White House for lunch and dinner too. The Guardian could do little more than send this up, while from BBC Online we learn the names of some of the other guests:
They were joined by the president's mother Barbara Bush, his brother Marvin P Bush and wife Margaret, the presidents' sister Doro Cock and her husband Robert P Cock.
I always did have the feeling there would be some Cocks among the Bushes.
Continue reading "Two Hopes..." »
 In the Christian calendar, yesterday was Hallow'een, the night the spirits of the dead cross the border between the afterlife and this world. Today was Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights. But people in Delhi were subdued, says BBC News. No wonder - on Saturday bombers killed 62 people.
Not yet proven, but pretty likely, is that the culprits were Kashmiri separatists, trying to scupper the brokerage of a temporary peace deal between India and Pakistan. The Kashmir dispute is about the border between the area controlled by Pakistan and the area controlled by India. Simple enough stuff, but what actually is a border?
Continue reading "Borders, Borders, Everywhere" »
Switch on the TV or open a newspaper or magazine and what you see or read are events and themes in isolation. Each exists by itself: you watch a programme or read an article and that's it. Nothing more. Over.
 Surf the Internet, on the other hand, and everything is interconnected, part of the overarching phenomenon known as the World Wide Web. And that is a lot more like real life. Things don't happen on their own. They happen for a reason, often a multitude of reasons and they are driven by a host of differing influences.
War, the nineteenth century strategist Karl von Clausewitz once wrote, is a continuation of politics by other means. It is a bold statement of the most simple but the most profound and important of connections. This blog is about war and politics, but more specifically about the inextricable links and parallels between the events we see unfold every day. The things that the papers don't always pick up on, or that the networks don't have time to run.
So, in the true pre-commercial spirit of the Internet, what I aim to write here is not conventional journalism: but maybe journalism by other means.
You can read more about the idea behind this blog on the about page. In summary, my interests are in the global politics that lead to the breakdown of diplomacy and the advent of war, plus the technology and operations of war itself.
And since the events that we know of occur only on this one planet, I also aim to examine the broader contexts of environmental issues - since the depletion of our natural resources and environment are perhaps the biggest single threat that 'the international community' - if such a thing exists - will have to face. If only they would see it.
My personal background is in defence and technology journalism, but in a larger sense I consider myself not a subject of the country I live in but a citizen of the world. In many ways, I am a product of globalisation - born to an Asian father in North America, yet raised in Britain as a European.
I have two passports, Canadian and British, I am entitled to a special 'Person of Indian Origin' permit and for the last couple of years I lived in a country and among a culture quite alien to my own, China. Other than my interests and my general journalistic skills, these are my only qualifications - but that's the beauty of blogging. You don't need to be an expert, just an observer.
My areas of interest are thus these three continents - North America, Europe and Asia - and the relations between them. South America and Africa are not specifically covered (other than under the 'Unrepresented' and perhaps the 'Travel and Miscellany' categories), not because they are unimportant, but in order to keep some kind of focus.
In brief then, I aim to examine the news and events of the day in context, viewing them not in isolation but paying attention to the wheels within wheels that turn to drive the world we live in. As the motto reads, I study war and peace that my sons may study mathematics and philosophy. As a private individual I acknowledge that I don't stand a chance of changing the world, but it's my generation that's got to at least start.
Many thanks for reading, and welcome again to the weblog.
|
|
