|
Main
The rest of the world: peoples unseen and voices unheard
Here's the thing, right? There are two clear underlying causes to all the major problems on earth. The first is overpopulation. Overpopulation means that there are too many people chasing after too many resources - energy, water, land etc. which inevitably leads to conflict. Enough has been written about that to sink a battleship.
Second, there's subjectivity. What's that? It's a lack of objectivity in our approaches to these problems. It's a natural trait of humanity to form into groups, but every group defines itself by a subjective outlook on the world around it. It's thus these groups that enter into conflicts.
Some examples. No objective discussion of the Middle East is possible due to Israel's emotional outlook: thanks to the Holocaust, any criticism or compromise is decried as 'anti-Semitic'. Likewise, Arab nations and Islamic terrorist groups cannot see past the Palestinian question.
The same is true wherever you look. Such is China's emotional attachment to Taiwan and Tibet that any questioning of the situation is condemned as "interference in our internal affairs". Same goes for Serbia, Russia and Kosovo. The dysfunctional tendencies of the UN and EU are all down to questions of national interest. Even the US defines itself these days with reference to 9/11 and any attempt to rationally tackle the greater issues are met with the same response.
So states and other actors are not rational - they are indeed irrational. International relations theory has it exactly wrong.
The only answer is to find a unifying threat or goal, a way to bring all the conflicting groups together into one. And, ironically, overpopulation provides us with that. We are faced with a significant common problem, that of climate change, for which overpopulation is a major cause. Too many people needing too many products, burning too much fuel and cutting down too many trees... you get the picture.
So work together to solve the population crisis and you have an answer to the irrationality that causes conflict and environmental degradation. It's so simple.
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.
The comment below, delivered at a conference on genocide is heretical but true. In the 2005 film Lord of War it is said that "the real weapon of mass destruction is the AK-47". That's entirely correct, but the real engines of genocide are poverty and weakness - accompanied by complacency on the part of the "international community".
Give people the arms to fight evil - it's bloody and nasty and lots of people suffer terribly - but in the long run, less of them will die. Allow them to retaliate back with superior armed force. Horribly Machiavellian, but such is the reality of geopolitics.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Can the world stop genocide?
French author Gerard Prunier, like the proverbial ghost at a wedding, said genocides could not be prevented by the international community.
"When you see a dictatorial regime heating up, everyone starts talking, talking, talking ... and by the time the talking stops, either matters have quietened down or they have happened."
And that is the crux of the matter, according to Mr Prunier - it is difficult for politicians or the military to intervene in a situation that has not yet evolved into a crisis.
So what is Mr Prunier's solution?
"Genocides can only be stopped by the people directly involved - and usually that means people involved in the war that accompanies most mass killings."
And if it is the government committing the genocide, the solution is "arm the rebels", he says.
"It won't be clean - it will be messy," the French author said, "but it is more likely to stop the mass killing than international intervention."
Sanctions. The answer to everything. Impose sanctions on Burma, the international community says, and everything will be fine.
Wrong. One only has to look at the plight of Iraq in the 1990s to confirm that, under some circumstances, economic sanctions actually hurt the people you are trying to help.
Yes, one could say that sanctions had an effect on South Africa, but the regime at the time had links to the global economy that it couldn't afford to lose. That's not the case in Burma, and in fact sanctions would only increase the desire to rebel. After all, the current crisis was triggered by a doubling of fuel prices, which would surely occur again under sanctions.
It's well known that, with their energy interests, China and India are the key players here. But neither would really benefit from the sustained rule of the junta. No successor government, presumably led by Aung San Suu Kyi, is going to back out of the energy deals already made with China and India - indeed, they'll be vital in rebuilding Burma as a nation again. So why support the dictatorship?
Just for a moment, let's think the unthinkable. If China fails to act, then the revolution has little hope. But there is one thing that the West can do - supply arms. The jungles of Burma are filled with guerilla groups itching for a fight, and were the ordinary people be able to contribute too then the military would topple rapidly. Yes, a lot of people will die, but no more than will die anyway under sanctions and repression.
There is a danger of Burma becoming a proxy war between China and India - because India would have to be the major supplier, as it was back in the 1950s when it support the Tibetan independence movement - but with the Beijing Olympics approaching China probably wouldn't want to get too involved.
There would also be potential for Burma to descend into inter-ethnic confrontation too, and thus the supply of weapons may exacerbate tensions. But with a leader of the symbolic strength and legitimacy of Aung San Suu Kyi in place, that prospect would be unlikely and a disciplined UN mission from the very start would hold things together during the reconstruction period.
Most of the revolutions of 1989 were, thankfully, bloodless. Not so in Romania, but the students fought back and Ceausescu fell. In Tiananmen Square, however, there was little the students could do. Moreover, the Bosnian conflict dragged on for ages due to Western reluctance to help the Muslims fight back.
So much for my arch geopolitics. War is a terrible thing, but if it can be over swiftly then it may be the lesser of two evils.
Comment is free: Let's get serious
Beijing wants the killing to stop, not in the name of human rights but for the sake of stability. But China and Russia do not want to see any regime change - either the eventual toppling of the Burmese generals or an implosion of the junta. A triumph of Buddhist-inspired people power might encourage Buddhists in Tibet and Falungong militants in China to defy the communist party control and Beijing's repression.
Still, China is in a bind as Burma conjures up memories of the Tiananmen Square killings just Beijing is preparing to host the Olympics. A repeat of the 1988 massacre in Rangoon when at least 3,000 pro-democracy activists were gunned down in the street, would cast a dark shadow over China's desire to be treated as a responsible global power.
While China will not back any sanctions, it is open to increasing diplomatic pressure to stop the killings, and the junta can ill afford to ignore the anxieties of its number one benefactor.
The US and the EU have many avenues to pressure both China and Asean, even up to the point of threatening a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. A simple threat by Beijing to suspend all arms supplies to Rangoon would deliver the only kind of message that the generals might finally understand.
The time of western countries and Asean paying polite lip-service to human rights and release of national heroine Aung san Suu kyi, still languishing under house arrest, is over. The coming weeks will soon demonstrate how many governments will put human rights and the plight of the Burmese before commercial advantage, trading priorities and comfort zone diplomacy.
 It's not just the moment of truth for Burma. It's a moment of truth for China, and that by implication affects all of us.
The question is: is China now a responsible stakeholder in the international community, or simply a nation concerned only with self-interest at the expense of human rights - both within its own territory and elsewhere?
It is no longer acceptable to trot out that tired old phrase: "We do not interfere in other countries' internal affairs". With the Olympics approaching, if Beijing really wants to be seen as an equal partner then it cannot let its coming-out party be overshadowed by its negligence of well-established international norms.
A former Burmese student leader just appeared on the BBC, insisting that the UN has "failed" his people and that it is no longer time for sanctions. He is right. Sanctions are slow and ultimately will only hurt the Burmese people, not the military elite. So, in a sense, it's a moment of truth for the UN and its ineffectual new chief, Ban Ki-Moon too.
But only China, with its massive investment in Burma's economy via the logging trade and various energy deals can make a real difference. India, I'm afraid to say, is impotent on the matter and is disappointingly reflecting the Chinese sovereignty line.
The CCP is in a difficult position. If it condemns the impending crackdown and acts on Burma, whether in the UNSC or bilaterally, then it opens itself up to a round of internal re-examination of the events of Tiananmen square - which themselves occurred just after a brutally repressed democracy movement in Burma in 1988. Though news of events of Burma is restricted in China, via the Internet, unlike in 1989 people will get to know about them.
In the next 48 hours, there are only two things that can happen. Either the junta relaxes control, frees Aung San Suu Kyi and enters negotiations with the UN. Or the guns begin to fire while the UN, as always, stands by. The world is watching. It's up to China.
 Interesting to see China advertising its humanitarian interest in Darfur, with a military show accompanied by a pledge to send peacekeepers to join the UN mission (though not combat troops, and an uncertain number). The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is the world's largest standing army and the PRC has sat on the UNSC since 1971, so it is about time.
The Washington Post is quick to note, however, that the promise to help Darfur comes under the cloud of possible boycotts of the Olympics, and the obvious fact that Sudanese oil is an important facet of China's energy security policy.
Of course, all countries have some kind of interest in UN peacekeeping missions, often financial, but with few obvious threats other than so-called Taiwanese 'secession' (as evidenced by this weekend's demonstrations calling for UN membership, unusually by both the DPP party and the Kuomintang), what does the PLA really exist for otherwise? Now that Tibet and Xinjiang are 'free', is there anyone else left to liberate?
QINYANG BASE, China, Sept. 15 -- The Chinese military put on a display of its first Darfur-bound peacekeepers Saturday, having troops throw up Bailey bridges and feign combat to dramatize Beijing's desire to be seen as a partner in bringing peace to the violence-torn corner of Sudan.
The training demonstration, by an engineering unit of the People's Liberation Army, was observed by foreign journalists as part of a new campaign by the Chinese government to show that it is cooperating with the United States and other nations to end the Darfur fighting, which since 2003 has displaced about 2.5 million people and contributed to the deaths of as many as 450,000 from violence and disease.
 Very distressing to read - and I suspect that The Guardian chose not to publish many of Jonathan Watts's pictures. More evidence that many Chinese have scant regard for the world we live in and the things we share it. It's not just about 'spectacular' animals such as tigers, it's a wider malaise that affects the air we all breathe and the water we all drink.
Not only this, but a shocking BBC documentary on the failure of Project Tiger to boot. Thousands of tiger skins sold to Tibet (though the ignorant buyers swiftly u-turned when the Dalai Lama issued an edict) and the bones all off to China for TCM.
The sheer irresponsibility is amazing. The effect that 1.3 billion people with a similar mindset could have, especially if they get they way and wriggle out of international conventions, is simply terrifying.
I can hear the excuses now. One China: one rule for us and another for the rest of you. Not as unlike America as they'd like to think.
Bred for the freezer: how zoo rears tigers like battery hens | Conservation | Guardian Unlimited Environment
The park is part farm, part zoo and part circus. Its nursery is the start of a production line that churns out hundreds of tigers each year and ends in the freezer packed with carcasses. In between, most animals spend their lives in hundreds of tiny cages that are lined up in rows around the perimeter wall, each jammed with as many as four animals, which lie around listlessly or pace back and forth between wire and concrete.
More fortunate beasts share a few football pitch-sized enclosures in the main visitor area. Others are trained to perform in the Dream Theatre - a circus where they jump through flaming hoops - or in an outdoor show that also has monkeys riding camels and a bear cycling across a highwire without a safety net.
Looks like a new phrase has been coined to match the Washington consensus of market liberalism bandied about in the last decades. In the last couple of weeks, China has entertained a quarter of the world's leaders, The Economist points out - both Africa and ASEAN. Despite suspicions of China's honourable intentions, everyone looks like they're smiling too.
Asia.view | China lays on the charm | Economist.com
China is likely to care more about governance and human rights, for example, if and when its investments in Africa are threatened by political instability, and if the fall of a pro-China despot brings an anti-China government in its wake. And, by cosying up to nasty dictatorships such as those in Sudan and Zimbabwe, China may damage its relations with Western countries, whose markets will long remain of paramount importance for China's economic growth.
China, mindful of the West’s own history of coddling unsavoury regimes, shrugs at such concerns. But public opinion in America and Europe is unnerved already by China’s export prowess. Policymakers, particularly in America, fret about the growth of Chinese military power. China would hate to see these concerns lead to trade barriers against Chinese goods, or to a severe chill in relations with America. China wants African friends, but not ones that prove too much of liability.
 It's not about trade. It's not about aid. It's not even about oil. It's about world domination:
...this super-summit is about more than a single continent. It marks a new stage in China's re-emergence as a superpower.
The Guardian's Jonathan Watts correctly identifies the deeper significance behind this week's Africa summit. Political commentators continue to gibber on about today's 'multipolar' global structure, but when the chips are down we're back to the Cold War. Power is not just about military strength, it's also about economic and moral advantage. And when it comes to dealing with the unsavoury characters that still dominate much of the planet, China's pre-eminence is clear:
China is not just buying resources, it is selling a model of development. While the west focuses on political freedoms and universal rights, Beijing says the priority should be on improving living standards and national independence. The superiority of this approach, it argues, has been proved by success in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
Where people once flocked to the shores of America in pursuit of wealth and happiness, China is selling its own dream to those who simply aspire to raise themselves out of poverty. In fact the West and the US are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the majority of the world's population, who understandably fear the motives of the former colonial powers. The appeal to dictators is even more obvious:
Robert Mugabe is now one of Africa's most enthusiastic sinophiles. "We have nothing to lose but our imperialist chains," he said before boarding a plane to Beijing.
African leaders are queueing up to sign new deals. Their eagerness to shake hands with President Hu Jintao has drawn comparison to the states that once came to pay tribute to the emperor.
Back in Africa there are a few dissenting voices, complaining that China is a pursuing a neo-colonialist policy, buying up cheap resources and selling higher-priced manufactured goods. But no such critical voices were to be heard among the VIP guests in Beijing.
Of course, only a fool would believe that China has Africa's interests at heart. Dictators love China because China leaves them alone to... dictate. Human rights and democracy couldn't be further from its mind. With the West's credibility walllowing in the quagmire of the Middle East, it looks like a new superpower has arisen.
We're back to a new frame of the Cold War - winner stays on. Soon it'll be the West versus the rest. But there's a lot more of them than us.
Reprinted below.
Continue reading "Selling the Chinese Dream" »
Next week will see another summit meeting in Beijing for African leaders. The Economist asks whether China is a suitable model for Africa - the answer, 'no', relates to China's cornering of every economic niche that Africa might once have exploited. China is offering only cash, not know-how or assistance - and in Africa, the cash just ends up in a few select pockets.
China gains both economically and in terms of political capital. It's colonialism by another name, and just as exploitative.
Africa and China | Wrong model, right continent | Economist.com
What is in it for China? It no longer wants Africa's hearts, minds or giraffes. Mostly, it just wants its oil, ores and timber—plus its backing at the United Nations. Thus, even as the Chinese win mining rights, repair railways and lay pipelines on the continent, Africa's governments are shuttering their embassies in Taiwan in deference to Beijing's one-China policy.
This suits Africa's governments. The scramble for resources invariably passes the ministerial doorstep, where concessions are sold and royalties collected. China helps African governments ignore Western nagging about human rights: its support has allowed Sudan to avoid UN sanctions over Darfur. And some Africans look on China as a development model, replacing the tough Washington Consensus with a “Beijing Consensus”: China's economic progress is cited by statists, protectionists and thugs alike to “prove” that keeping the state's grip on companies, trade and political freedoms need not stop a country growing by 8%-plus a year.
Dutch Multiculturalism in Question
A draft report of proceedings in New York, by Jessica Serraris and Philip Sen.
Those who managed to get in – people were literally lining up around Washington Square to attend the debate at NYU’s Tischman Auditorium – were warned that they’d hear some views that would be “a little more direct than Americans are used to”. They were not to be disappointed.
Integration and its Discontents
Students, professors, journalists and VIPs alike gathered to see arguably one of the most celebrated Dutch women in recent history. The notoriously outspoken Ayaan Hirsi Ali had been invited to discuss the dark side of Islam and Dutch multiculturalism, and along with former EU commissioner FFrits Bolkestein and writer Bas Heijne she certainly managed to captivate the audience.
But the debate was deeply one-sided. If Heijne was supposed to counter the rightist views of the other two, he did not live up to the task. Perhaps the debate would have benefited had a prominent and outspoken Muslim been invited to the stage too. Still, what ensued was otherwise a representative discussion on Holland’s controversial and divisive integration issues. After Professor Tony Judt's introduction, in which he set recent upheavals (including two political assassinations) into context, it was time to hear the speakers make their cases. It soon became clear that there would be more than one star of the show.
Read on below.
Continue reading "Religion and the Limits of Tolerance" »
 At first, the coup in Thailand seemed like a benevolent, bloodless yellow counterpart to the recent 'Orange Revolutions'; a welcome and necessary reaction against the increasingly erratic behaviour of maverick leader Thaksin Shinawatra. I hope and expect that this picture is not incorrect.
It's certainly not in Thailand's interests to rock the boat of its economic growth, fulled by FDI and foreign tourism. But worrying signs have begin to emerge, for example the clampdown on freedom of information, and today's ban on political action. It's beginning to sound less like a temporary bump on the path to transition as the setting up of a roadblock.
The Economist is also wary:
...things can go badly wrong, as they did in Thailand the last time the men in khaki seized power: opposition to the 1991 coup eventually resulted in bloodshed and military rule collapsed in 1992 after the intervention of the king. Which is why the Thai armed forces' latest escapade, on the night of September 19th, is so alarming. Although the coup was apparently bloodless and accompanied by promises of an election in a year or so, no one has any real idea what will happen next.
Quite. The article also correctly points out that Thailand's polity has been looking shakier by the day this year, what with the anti-Shinawatra demonstrations, the confused snap election and the ambivalence over his stepping down. The military coup, while a shock to many, in retrospect was rather predictable.
What is not predictable is what happens next. Can we really trust the coup leaders on thei promises to return to democracy - and even if we can, what kind of 'democracy' do they mean?
The Economist's assessment, as usual, is grim:
More instability, not less, is the likely outcome. Nor is turmoil likely to help clean up political life. Corruption flourished under a succession of military-favoured prime ministers and was bad, too, under the opposition Democrats in the late 1990s.
The malign consequences of the coup may not be confined to Thailand itself. Most governments, with the honourable exception of Australia's, have been limp-wristed in their condemnation of the assault on Thailand's democracy. Others in the region may yet draw lamentable conclusions from that.
Exactly. Who's going to fly the democratic flag if things don't progress as promised? China? Don't make me laugh - they'd like nothing better than another easily-manipulated regime like Burma on their doorstep.
If the spirit of malcontent does spill over to the Phillippines and Indonesia, the consequences for the region will be dire. It seems that whatever the pundits may say, there is still, even today, a different style of politics in Asia. ASEAN is no closer to emulating the EU than it is to winning the World Cup.
Story reproduced below.
Continue reading "How Now, Yellow Coup?" »
 Today's what, in the business, they call "a fast news day". Stuff happened. Lots of it.
We awoke to images of anti-government protests in Hungary, sparked by the Prime Minister's admission of misconduct. Though rain stopped play today, the storming of the TV station (always the fist thing to go down in a revolution) was eerily reminiscent of the end of the Cold War back in 1989.
Then, though perhaps we should have seen it coming, a military coup in Thailand. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had been on shaky ground ever since calling a snap election to prove his credibility, and tacitly admitting defeat and withdrawal from politics yet never really letting go of the reins (Tony Blair - something to ponder there. But the sight of tanks in Bangkok is still quite a shocker.
All this distracted attention from the backdrop of UN headquarters in New York, where world leaders are gathering for Kofi Annan's final session in charge. It's not been a day of minced words, with prominent personalities calling for moves to end the Israel-Palestine conflict and even the sight of Bush - commendably - demanding action on Darfur:
Mr Bush said that if the Khartoum authorities did not do so quickly, the UN had to act. "Your lives and the United Nation's credibility are at stake," he added, addressing the people of Darfur.
The US president also announced the appointment of a special US envoy to the region.
Fine words then, but not much action for now. But Bush was also struggling to justify his increasingly isolated position on the Middle East, the bigger fish being fried at the expense of Sudan.
All this and also a shake-up in Saddam's trial: continued protests in Taiwan; and bombs in Somalia. Anchors across the rolling news channels were looking somewhat out of breath.
What does all this mean? Well, for now it is of course too early to tell. But I think that today has dealt quite a blow to the institutionalising agenda of neo-liberalism. Hungary's problems stem from economic failure that has, if anything, been exacerbated rather than assuaged by EU membership:
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, one of the biggest problems facing governments in former Eastern Bloc countries has been how to marry the expectations of the electorate with the harsh realities of running free-market economies that aspire to join the single European currency.
 Even worse in Thailand, one of the leading lights of ASEAN but also the source of the 1997 financial crisis. I expect that investors will be watching events with dismay: the image of Asia as a stable region for trade has been shattered once again.
China, on the other hand, will probably be laughing all the way to the bank as foreign companies get the jitters and pull out.
And finally, the UN as an institution is once again under the microscope. It came out of the Lebanon fiasco somewhat bruised, and the mainly European contingent of peacekeepers have yet to prove their worth under any major test. Now there is a growing onus for it to engage with the fractious Israel-Palestine conflict, an issue at the very root of much of the tension in the world today.
What happens with Sudan and Darfur is an even graver immediate issue: can this embattled institution stand back yet again and allow genocide in our own time? We shall see.
 I confess to having thought that the Non-Aligned Movement died a quiet death sometime around the 1980s, but this week's summit in Havana tends to disprove that, even if the best picture I could find was of Nasser, Tito and Nehru in 1956.
But what is the movement's relevance in the post-Cold War context of globalization and the War on Terror?
Even the BBC's coverage of this 'rogue's gallery' is a little tongue-in-cheek:
In the corridors behind the meeting halls, I found wry smiles and uneasy reassurance from diplomats who looked as though they were guests who had somehow turned up at the wrong party.
But the reporter does identify the fact that this is a forum where, in the absence of the US and Europe and without the framework of the UN or WTO, these countries can talk about their own agendas.
It appears to be paying positive dividends already in the shape of the resumption of India-Pakistan peace talks over Kasmir - Musharraf has been quite the international diplomat this month (I note he is scheduled to speak at the Oxford Union in two weeks too).
Any deal in the subcontinent has to be positive. Let's not knock it any further.
BBC article below.
Continue reading "Non-Aligned Against the World" »
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Taiwan leader faces mass protest
Organisers say more that 200,000 people joined Saturday's rally outside the presidential offices in Taipei - but police put the number at 90,000.
The BBC's Caroline Gluck, at the scene, says it is a sea of red.
There are four big red balloons, representing righteousness, integrity, prosperity and honour.
The protesters say these virtues have been lost in today's Taiwan, and Mr Chen should stand down.
 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" »
Chavez woos China with pledge - Business - International Herald Tribune
"In 2009, we'll reach half a million barrels a day, and in the decade after that we'll see a million barrels," Chavez said.
The left-leaning Chavez, a strident critic of Washington, wants to reduce Venezuela's dependence on oil exports to the United States and sees China as an important alternative. Venezuela is the fifth-biggest oil exporter over all and currently ships 1.5 million barrels of a day to the United States. This is about two-thirds of its oil exports.
BBC NEWS | Business | India to put $1bn in African oil
China is involved in Sudan, Nigeria, Zimbabwe... now India gets in on the act.
"India and China - because of their population demands, economic growth and increasing prosperity - need energy security, plus they have money to invest now," said Mr Khatua, India's ambassador to Ivory Coast.
However, India's desire to invest comes as Ivory Coast remains unstable following a civil war that ended in 2003.
"India has identified this market and it believes this crisis will be resolved soon and that it will then be able to penetrate deeper into the market," said Mr Khatua.
 The First Post : China: Africa’s new imperial power
There is ultimately no difference between having China mine your mineral wealth and having a Western nation do it. The African nations have the right to cosy up to whoever they want. Signing energy deals with China does not represent a pact with the Devil, and the effect of these deals on African nations is probably no more culturally and morally destructive than the relentless torrent of ill-directed aid money and the corruption that routinely follows close behind. It would certainly be better to have China manage your energy industry than have Simon Mann and Mark Thatcher do so. The Chinese, at least, will be there to stay, and in return for their vast profits will offer renovated infrastructure, skilled labour and technological advancement.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The Economist's choice of title (from a poem by Dylan Thomas) for its analysis of the collapse of the WTO talks is apposite indeed. Think of what you might, for better or for worse the WTO is now the light that failed.
The historic chance to truly liberalize the world economy looks like it has eluded us, and at the end of the day those who will suffer most will be the poor and the deprived. Europe's ludicrous and insane Common Agricultural Policy will continue to screw people in Africa and elsewhere:
This is a tragedy, especially for the developing world. Last year, the World Bank estimated that global gains from trade liberalisation would equal roughly $287 billion, of which $86 billion would accrue to developing nations, lifting at least 66m people out of poverty. Activist groups including Greenpeace and Oxfam were quick to condemn both Washington and Brussels for intransigence over agricultural subsidies, saying that rich-world self interest is leaving the poor to suffer.
For the benefit of a few French farmers, cheap subsidised grain will continue to flood the world market putting local producers out of business and ultimately creating the conditions for famine. As Amartya Sen correctly says, it's not just drought that triggers starvation - it's economics.
It's not often that I spring to Bush's defence, and this is not one of those times, but The Economist has a point:
The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies. This is ironic, because America has been one of the grave men pushing hard to revive Doha after the round’s first collapse at Cancún in 2003. Despite high-profile deviations, such as slapping tariffs on imported steel, Mr Bush has largely been a committed free trader.
The truth is that while there have been grave men and wise men, the good men have had no real voice. And I too think that the blame lies squarely with our very own beloved EU.
What has not been said, so far, is who else will gain from this. I think there's going to be one big beneficiary... it's coming... China. Without demands to relax trade tariffs on manufactured imports etc. China may well continue to resist becoming the 'world's largest market', as so many expect it to be.
On the other hand, if the West begin slapping tariffs and quotas on imports from China, the whole edifice of the PRC could swiftly begin to crumble. I don't think it'll come to that, but it could be one of a cocktail of factors that lead us further down that dark road, burning and raving at the close of day.
Continue reading "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night..." »
BBC NEWS | Africa | Somali Islamist orders 'holy war'
"I am calling on the Somali people to wage a holy war against Ethiopians in Somalia," said Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of the Union of Islamic Courts.
Ethiopia denies that its forces are in the government's base of Baidoa, but a BBC reporter has seen them patrolling.
It never rains but it pours war in buckets. Given that the area in question is right off the Red Sea shipping lane it's not exactly another pointless though bloody African conflict.
 Oxford Professor and all-round commentator Timothy Garton-Ash takes a timely look at the state of the world in mid-2006.
His analysis is bleak. Of course, no writer on current affairs has the benefit of hindsight and it'll be a long time before we know how history will view this little episode. But Garton-Ash takes the essentially neo-realist view that a multipolar order is a recipe for disaster.
The neo-liberalist argument that the US will create stability through institutions and 'enlightened self-interest' no longer washes, and the hegemon is clearly on the decline as other powers rise. The kernel of the argument is quite succinct:
This new multipolarity is the result of at least three trends. The first, and most familiar, is the rise or revival of other states - China, India, Brazil, Russia as comeback kid - whose power resources compete with those of the established powers of the west. The second is the growing power of non-state actors. These are of widely differing kinds. They range from movements like Hamas, Hizbullah and al-Qaida, to non-governmental organisations like Greenpeace, from big energy corporations and drug companies to regions and religions.
A third trend involves changes in the very currency of power. Developments in technologies with violent potential mean that very small groups of people can challenge powerful established states, whether by piloting an aeroplane into the World Trade Centre in New York, targeting a missile at Haifa, taking on the US military in Iraq, bombing the London underground, or squirting sarin gas into the Tokyo subway.
Not to mention the US's loss of EH Carr's third kind of power, 'power over opinion' (the others being military and economic power). Since the war America has been much better at provoking than winning hearts and minds. It just can't let go of those balls, and unfortunately Israel tends to follow suit.
Most of all, Garton-Ash displays his disillusionment with the tenets of liberalism (which encompasses a convenient jibe at the commander-in-chief of misplaced liberal values, the French President):
When Jacques Chirac spoke fondly of multipolarity, back in 2003, he conflated two claims: the world is multipolar, and that's a good thing. Claim 1 is being proved right. Claim 2 has yet to be confirmed. For a start, it matters a lot whether this is multipolar order or multipolar disorder. Order is a high value in international relations. It stops a lot of people being killed. At the moment, we have multipolar disorder, and it's not clear what the shape of a new multipolar order might be. Historically, the emergence of new powers, elbowing for position, has increased the chances of violence. So has contested authority within the frontiers of states.
I disagree with the author's fears that nuclear conflict is impending; no state (apart from North Korea, perhaps) would be willing to act in such self-disinterest, and I can't see any terrorist organisations gaining the capability or the will to use the bomb.
But the essence of his fears is spot-on:
We liberal internationalists dream of a world of democratic, peace-loving, human-rights-respecting states... Some of the growing powers fit that vision... to a large extent, India and Brazil. China and Russia definitely do not, nor do many of the non-state actors that are currently making the running in world politics. Henry Kissinger has suggested that the geopolitics of Asia in the 21st century could resemble those of Europe in the 19th century, with great powers jockeying for position, using war as the continuation of politics by other means. But it could be worse. It could be that kind of great-power rivalry on a world scale, plus terrorists. And corporations. And transnational religious communities. And international NGOs. No moral equivalence is suggested between these very different kinds of actor, but what they all have in common is that they don't fit neatly into a world order of states.
By other means, indeed.
Continue reading "New World Disorder 2.0" »
 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 Economist may be dry, but it has a way of hitting you now and again with a paragraph or two stuffed with pithy aphorisms. Take the opener to this week's Pakistan survey:
Think about Pakistan, and you might get terrified. Few countries have so much potential to cause trouble, regionally and worldwide. One-third of its 165m people live in poverty, and only half of them are literate. The country's politics yo-yo between weak civilian governments and unrepresentative military onesthe sort currently on offer under Pervez Musharraf, the president and army chief, albeit with some democratic wallpapering. The state is weak. Islamabad and the better bits of Karachi and Lahore are orderly and, for the moment, booming. Most of the rest is a mess. In the western province of Baluchistan, which takes up almost half of Pakistan's land mass, an insurgency is simmering. In the never-tamed tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, the army is waging war against Islamic fanatics.
Nor is that all. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and until recently was selling their secrets to North Korea, Iran, Libya and maybe others. During its most recent big stand-off with India, in 2002, Pakistan gave warning that, if attacked, it might nuke its neighbour. Mostly, however, in Kashmir, Afghanistan and its own unruly cities, Pakistan has used, and perhaps still uses, Islamist militants to fight its warsincluding the confused lot it is fighting, at America's request, in the tribal areas. Several thousand armed extremists are swilling around the country. Thousands more youths are being prepared for holy war at radical Islamic schools. Osama bin Laden is widely believed to be in Pakistan.
If that doesn't have you running for the bomb shelter, then switch to the BBC where you'll find news about gun battles involving the Baloch and a rising British fatality toll over the border in Afghanistan prompting swift reconsiderations.
Does the West really know what it's doing here? More than one empire has bitten off more than it can chew in this lawless, volatile region - are we merely the latest?
Furthermore, so much of the situation is down to just one man:
Pakistan does not need a saviour to become stable and well. It needs a sustainable political system, representing the majority of its people. General Musharraf has had some successes. But by sabotaging Pakistan's fragile democracy, he may well have made the country even more dangerous.
Full story below.
Continue reading "The Sum of All Fears" »
 Of course it is impossible to predict what course the future will take with regard to potential conflict with China. What follows is thus quite speculative. But there are a few factors pertaining to the period around 2012, the next Year of the Dragon, that stand out:
Economic superpower status. Over the next five or six years, China's economic ascendancy will be complete. Publications such as Newsweek are already writing on what they call 'China's Century'. What happens in the Chinese economy sends shockwaves around the world. Not to mention the US budget deficit, much of which is already down to China. With this kind of authority, China is going to be far less shy to act, perhaps radically, in its own interests.
Games over. The Chinese are greatly looking forward to the 2008 Olympic Games and the 2010 Shanghai Expo and are unlikely to do anything to scupper them before they are over. But by 2012 they will have neither of these to lose.
Impending implosion? Over the next decade China's resources will be stretched to a crippling limit while, despite the one-child policy, the population will have continued to rise. Rampant environmental pollution is not going to help put food in the mouths of 1.4 billion hungry citizens. Peasant protests and nationalism are both on the increase and by this time the CCP may no longer be able to keep them under control.
Resources on the wane. And oil: never forget oil. By 2012, unless it has taken serious measures to secure resources for itself, it's going to break down like an old banger - and the incredible economic growth that legitimates the Party's grip on power will break down down with it. Many theorists predict this year as a critical point - see for example the Olduvai Gorge theory, itself based on Hubbert's Peak.
Election year. The year 2012 will see elections in not only the US but possibly also in Taiwan. Elections are also due in Hong Kong; whether or not the authorities will allow them is another matter. It may even be time for the current leadership of the CCP to stand down after eight years in power. The year is thus extremely volatile politically with world leaders distracted and potential flashpoints waiting to happen within 'One China' itself.
 Military superpower status. Finally, if speculations are correct, by 2012 China's military build-up will be complete. It will have its motive, it will have its carrier group, it will have its opportunity. If the PRC moves to retake the ROC, will the US act to defend it or not? If things continue as they have done since 9/11, by 2012 the US military itself will be embroiled in conflicts across the Middle East, from Syria, via Iraq and Iran, as far as Afghanistan. Weakened and overstretched it won't be in a position to fight upon a second front. In a Presidential election year as 2012 will be, the prospect of even more American body bags will not be a vote-winner. And if Taiwan falls undefended, what would happen next?
I hope that it does not come to this. The only outcome that is in all our interests is peace. But as if all the above are not enough, there are enough mystical predictions out there to indicate that something is up: we just don't yet know what.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update - since this hypothesis was first written in Autumn 2005, I've found a couple more articles which seem to justify it. Of course they must be taken with a large pinch of salt, but this Epoch Times report confirms similar thinking on the 2012 date - see also the analysis by the Association for Asian Research.
Read on below for more detailed explanations.
Continue reading "Flashpoint 2012" »
 Worth noting for future reference, an article delineating some of the geopolitical implications of the Gwadar naval port.
Though events may well overtake me, at the moment it is looking like the most likely future flashpoint between China and the US - Taiwan excepted - is going to be here. All of the pieces are in place. China is building up Gwadar in order to protect its Gulf oil supplies, and perhaps export energy via potential pipelines through Pakistan (see map). The US also has a major presence in Pakistan due to the War on Terror, and is actively engaging the Taliban along the border.
Meanwhile, Baloch nationalists are conducting a campaign for independence - which inevitably will bring them into conflict with both powers. India appears to be supporting this, and finally Pakistan and Iran seem to be caught in the middle between their alliances and enmities with the US, China and India.
A more complex and volatile situation could not be asked for. According to the Government of Balochistan website:
The realization of economic and strategic objectives of the Gwadar port by Pakistan is largely dependent upon the reduction of separatist violence in Balochistan by the Baloch freedom fighters. Pakistani response to secessionism is aggressive military action in Balochistan. Pakistani fighter jets, gunship helicopters, heavy artillery, and over 60,000 troops have launched a military operation inside Balochistan to target the ethnic Baloch population, mainly the non-combatant, innocent men, women and children. To date the Pakistani forces have conducted extrajudicial arrests of more than 4,000 Baloch activists, killed over 700 Baloch nationals in direct military action, and planted landmines in Baloch areas to close all escape routes resulting in the deaths of over 10,000 Baloch civilians due of starvation and lack of medical assistance.
Jerusalem, Israel based Government of Balochistan in Exile is in contact with officials of countries that have a vested interest in containing Chinese ambitions in the region. Negotiations are being conducted to explore ways and means to close the Chinese naval outpost in Gwadar. Both the Indian and U.S. policy makers are keen to resolve the grievances of the Baloch people through peaceful means. But, neither Iran, Pakistan nor China agree to retract from their plans and settle the issue of sovereignty of Balochistan with the Baloch leadership. Hence, the Baloch nationalists were compelled to fight for their self-determination, and they have already waged the Baloch War of Independence on both the Iranian and Pakistani government forces.
Full article reproduced below.
Continue reading "Three Great Powers and One Nascent Nation" »
A recent UNDP report, reported here in The Guardian, says that trade and globalization are creating unemployment. How did they work that one out?
OK, so it's never a good thing to dismiss a report that tells you something you don't want to hear. But I find it hard to understand how development is creating unemployment.
Technology, on the other hand, does reduce the manpower required - robots, for example, mean that one worker can do the job of 10 on a motor vehicle production line - but the spread of technology is inevitable unless you actually want to go backwards. And I'm pretty sure that a reversion to labour-intensive production is not going to improve poverty, human rights or the economy - it'll probably make it less competitive.
I think that somewhere in the writing of the report some politics have come into play. It's not just the information you find, it's how you present it. The report will probably provide much-needed ammunition for the nostalgic rearguards of the 'Licence Raj' and the 'Planned Economy' in India and China, neither of which did anything for the people but bind them into a poverty trap for decades.
Of course capitalism creates inequality. But eventually, as some grow rich, their capital will create more jobs in service industries and new ventures financed by success. Marx has already been proven to be deeply and utterly wrong - why this enduring affection for his ideas? Development is freedom - it just takes time.
In conclusion though, the article does pick out the good advice buried in the research:
The UNDP human development report calls for greater investment in rural development. It also says that the region's huge foreign exchange reserves - which are seen as protection against another Asian financial crisis - could be better invested in health, education and physical infrastructure, and to help ease the oil price shock in poorer countries.
Exactly. It's not development and trade that are creating unemployment - it's government reluctance to invest in sustaining the boom. China is well ahead of India when it comes to creating masses of jobs in infrastructure: Manmohan Singh needs to utilize the current warmth from the US to attract foreign cash and expertise to build badly needed electricity, communications and transport networks. And education is the real equalizer - give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish...
Reproduced below: hopefully the report itself will soon become available here.
Continue reading "How Did They Work That One Out?" »
Was thinking over my Flashpoint 2012 theory this morning, and lo and behold this pops up on the BBC.
The actual Amnesty report is here, and it merely confirms what we already know. In Sudan, Burma and Nepal, China has been a significant supplier of arms to unsavoury regimes.
Amnesty's naivety is almost touching:
"We're calling for China to enact into law and uphold commitments... banning all arms transfers where they are likely to be used for human rights violations," Ms Hughes said.
Yeah, as if. China itself is one of the world's biggest human rights violators, and reneges on a number of international treaties from the WTO to the UN Charter.
Now, this is not to say that China is not doing anything the US isn't doing. In fact the US is doing the very same thing a hundred times over, if not a thousand.
But the point is that China is selling arms to protect its interests. Oil in Sudan and Iran; oil supply routes and logging with Myanmar; and strategic positioning over India and Tibet in Nepal. That's the nub of things.
There's also various conflicts in Pakistan and India, in which China, energy resources and Maoism are all somehow mixed up. Pipelines were recently blown in up in both Baluchistan and in Assam.
Coming soon: a full explanation of Flashpoint 2012 theory. Watch this space. BBC report below.
Update - 17 June 2006 BBC Analysis here.
Continue reading "China and Proxy Wars" »
 With great fanfare and slapping of mutual backs, The Observer and Amnesty International today launched a new campaign against censorship of the Internet - 'Irrepressible.info'.
I'm not totally sure, however, that they understand the situation completely.
Without wishing to pour cold water on this laudable effort, it's important to make a distinction. There are three parties involved - states, companies and individuals - each of which has a different perspective.
Above all, it must be recognised that it is states that censor, torture and imprison, not companies.
I lived in China for a couple of years and was involved in building an English-language bloggers network (livinginchina.com now defunct) so I came into contact with the censorship every day.
It works like this. Aside from sweeping censorship of blogs and personal websites (typepad- and geocities-hosted sites etc. were inaccessible while I was there) the state identifies certain sites or clusters of keywords it doesn't like (BBC's news site is one), and blocks you from accessing them.
So, if you enter 'tibet', for example, into google.com, you'll see results for the Dalai Lama's government in exile and the Free Tibet movement. It's just that if you click on the link, they won't open. You get the good old 'page not found' screen.
I have no particular love for Google, but what the Chinese version (google.cn) does is simply lead you to those sites that you CAN access. It's not doing the censorship itself. It's Cisco Systems, I believe, that actually provided the hardware for the Great Firewall of China.
The result is that many individuals practise self-censorship, in order to avoid their sites being blocked or getting into worse trouble. This saves the state a lot of time effort and money.
Compare this with Yahoo!'s tip offs to the Chinese government about subversive e-mails etc.. Shi Tao and others are not in prison due to censorship - they are incarcerated because they were betrayed by Western companies they didn't think would collude with the Party in this way.
That is the real tragedy of the situation. All I am saying is that you must make the distinction between censorship and active oppression of individuals. Some of this you can influence by lobbying the Western companies involved and actively colluding and I commend it.
Some companies, however, are simply submitting to the restrictions that the state imposes. If anything, google.cn actually helps users find the content that isn't censored by the state.
Finally, there has never been freedom of speech in China and many other places. They are not going to change their whole policy just because The Observer and Amnesty tell them to. Prepare to be blocked.
Leader from The Observer reprinted below.
Continue reading "Altogether Repressible" »
 Despite its dry and austere reputation, The Economist sticks to the mandate of true journalism: of late, for example, it has been instrumental in keeping Darfur in the international spotlight.
Tonight is the deadline for a deal to be struck between the government and rebels, and likely as not it won't happen.
However, on a positive note, the US is getting involved. This week has thus been a good one for the US, in my eyes: the correct judgement on Zacarias Moussaui and now at least the right moves towards Sudan. Iran, of course, is another matter, but at least the US is trying to push it through the UN Security Council.
Does this herald a new era for US diplomacy? I don't think so at all. There's always interests involved somewhere along the line:
George Bush is now said to be passionate about getting both NATO and United Nations forces on the ground in Darfur, an idea that the Islamist Sudanese government detests. The reality, however, is more nuanced. Sudans military intelligence has been supportive of both the CIA (spilling a few beans on al-Qaeda) and the janjaweed militias who have done most of the killing in Darfur. So the question for the Bush administration is not just how to stop the slaughter, which it has called a genocide, but how to stop it at the same time as keeping Sudan more or less on side in the war on terrorism.
Nevertheless, it's the right move, especially in the face of UN inadequacy over the food programme. However, it's very doubtful whether a NATO or UN force could be effective, and inevitably it'll end up as another quagmire.
Continue reading "An Eye on Darfur" »
 It's 1 May, and that means rioting! Well, maybe not today. Oh, and it's this blog's six-month anniversary too.
The hijack of Labour Day by globalisation (whether pro- or anti-) is continuing, however, in the shape of a strike by immigrant workers in the US, as pointed out in The Economist's Global Agenda.
Immigration is the subject of this week's study, and I concede that it's something I haven't thought an awful lot about before. But I myself am the product of immigration in many ways:
My father is an immigrant, who came to the UK in the 1960s and stayed on, though now he lives between both New Delhi and London.
I emigrated from Canada to the UK, and still hold a Canadian passport. I am now naturalised as a British citizen, and thus as an EU citizen.
I spent two years in Shanghai, as a 'foreign expert' transferring my skills to Asia.
I now live in the Netherlands: I'm waiting on my resident's permit.
In the west, it is something that affects us all - it's a further breakdown of the boundaries of the nation state.
Full article below.
Continue reading "The True Labour Day" »
...can I have some more?
It's becoming increasingly obvious that China's foreign policy is exclusively based around energy. Since leaving Washington, Hu Jintao made a beeline for Saudi Arabia (where he discussed a refining project and a weapons contract) and is now in Nigeria where he just signed another $4bn deal.
Meanwhile, there'll be more anti-terror exercises in Central Asia next year via the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.
China is clearly cosying up to all its energy supplying allies who, with the US weakened by Iraq, are all looking for reliable customers.
 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...
There's a Brazilian restaurant in Shanghai, just next to Jing An Si metro. If you get the chance to go there, do. It's fantastic. Prices have probably gone up since I left, but in July it was 75RMB (under $10) for as much meat you can eat. The ultimate in capitalist consumption.
So it was interesting to see how Brazil is getting along with China these days
I see it as further evidence that we're in the throes of a new Cold War. China's influence abroad continues to mount, much to the consternation of the US. But what exactly is the Chinese model of 'peaceful development'? Here's one version:
"The Chinese government has achieved the greatest victory in the history of human rights," says Charles Tang, who heads the Brazil-China Chamber of Commerce and who has been behind many of the joint-venture initiatives.
"It has removed 400 million Chinese people from poverty and enabled them to live with dignity and take part in economic life. That is the true measure of human rights."
This is true. However, Brazil and others would do well to remember the other aspect of China's growth. It's occuring not despite China's lack of democracy but because of it. Do they really want to emulate everything about the system? Or is development simply equatable to freedom regardless of the consequences.
Continue reading "Brazil Seeks Different Kind of Model" »
 Compare and contrast these two articles from the BBC:
After the invasion: Iraqis speak
Kyrgyzstan's revolution: One year on
They make for depressing reading. Though the circumstances of regime change in Iraq and Kyrgyztan wer profoundly different - the first imposed by the US and heavily criticised, the second an organic uprising by the people - the comments are the same.
None of the people interviewed in either Krygyzstan and Iraq are happy. In Central Asia the corruption continues; in the Middle East the violence has simply taken on new clothing.
If neither invasion nor revolution were successful ways to remove authoritarianism and oppression, is there anything, then, that can work?
Iraq interviews below.
Continue reading "Whatever it was, it didn't work" »
 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" »
 It's just a phrase; it has little substansive meaning.
Today the UN formed a new Human Rights Council to replace the Human Rights Commission. So the new council doesn't contain members with bad records on human rights. But so what? What is anyone actually going to do about human rights violations?
Studying International Law as part of my course, it's becoming increasingly obvious that there is not really any such thing as International Law. The basic reason is that it can't be enforced. Sanctions inevitably hurt the people they are designed to protect; military intervention is rare, has to be approved by the UN, and seldom has a sufficient mandae to achieve anything concrete.
The only real remedy is the 'motivation of shame'; which doesn't work when the governments and individuals concerned are utterly shameless.
Meanwhile, serial abusers such as Milosevic are free to pass peacefully away in their cells; others still, like Karadzic and Mladic, remain at large.
What we need are not just councils and conventions but a real, permanent standing force capable of taking swift and decisive action, removing the authority of abusive regimes and of dragging these people straight from their palaces to face the firing squad. That I'm afraid is the only thing these people will recognise, and will be the only deterrent to human rights violators elsewhere.
Yet with the ICC a joke and the Iraq War a mess, there's a long way to go yet.
Continue reading "Human Rights for Who?" »
 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" »
 The sheer absurdity of the issue burning up the papers at the moment is what bowls me over.
In some ways, the Danish cartoon issue is a very effective red rag to two camps which, in a better world, would be desperately seeking to build relations with each other rather than tear them down.
It has to be said that in the light of the Salman Rushdie fatwah and the Theo Van Gogh murder, to name but two incidents in recent memory, any newspaper editor who knowingly sets out to confront Islam really should know what to expect.
Instead, however, the media is perceiving this all as a debate on 'free speech'. Get real. The idea of 'free speech' is basically a Western sensibility which is not compatible with many elements of the religious right - whether in Islam, the Roman Catholic church or elsewhere.
As deliberate provocations go, it takes some beating. Yes, I agree that the media has an inalienable right to free speech, but this is a trivial and petty way to go about it.
The leader from this week's Economist is reprinted below. As is to be expected, it comes down heavily on the side of the newspapers.
But it ignores the other side of media freedom, which is responsibility. Freedom is not free, and it is the duty of the media in the west to use its freedom responsibly. There are many other ways in which the paper could have tackled the issues it wished to tackle without the blatent disregard for religious sensibilities.
The affair is also an illustration of how events in the globalised world are not necessarily under the control of conventional 'state-based' entities. The Muslim protests are disorganised and spontaneous. The European newspapers' declarations of solidarity were likewise spontaneous and uncontrolled. There is nothing that yet exists to temper either force - either the force of righteous indignation or the force of free will.
11.2.06 - Note - see also this entry by Dave...
Continue reading "Cartoon Violence" »
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.
 A really forced smile from WTO Director-General and erstwhile Nosferatu lookalike Pascal Lamy.
Having been on the road in Bhimtal for the past few days, I've not been able to deal with this one in much detail, but suffice it to say that major events have been afoot with the simultaneous EU budget talks and the WTO Hong Kong negotiations.
And both ultimately appear to have failed.
Continue reading "The Battle of Brussels and the Siege of Wan Chai" »
 Having recently written something of a brickbat review on The Rough Guide to China for The Sunday Times, now's my chance to redress the balance.
The company has just launched this site in conjunction with the UK government's Department for International Development (DFID). I haven't seen the book itself, but if it's free - why not order it?
http://www.roughguide-betterworld.com/
You see some pitiful things in Asia, not least of which is the treatment of animals. Today in Delhi, for example, I saw a cow roaming the streets, its foot crawling with maggots. Cattle may be sacred but it doesn't entitle them to healthcare.
Take note then of the first barrage against China in the run up to the 2008 Olympics. Unfortunately, when celebrities attack (in this case Sir Paul McCartney and consort) they are rarely taken seriously. Nevertheless, when the eyes of the world focus on China in just over two years (yes, it's not that far away) this is what they may see.
In particular, your attention is drawn to the 3rd and 4th paras of the BBC article I take this from:
The film shows animals being thrown from a bus, and into boiling water.
A Chinese official said boycotts were not justified, and blamed US and European consumers for buying the fur.
Ummm - so it's OK to boil animals alive 'cos Europeans buy the fur? So it's nothing to do with the Chinese at all? Whether or not you care for the animals, this is a profound example of the kind of attitude that needs swiftly to be amended.
I for one care about the animals, a lot. This is not to say that I am a great supporter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) - I think that their methods are at best histrionic and and at worst counterproductive. They are all headlines, extreme language and little substance.
But it's the utter contempt for outsiders that gets me. I found it in China itself, but to hear it from the Chinese ambassador's spokesman is mindblowing. If it's animal rights today, what next?
The full story (click here) is printed below for the benefit of those in China who cannot access it.
Continue reading "Not Our Fault" »
 Due to this week's state visit, The Guardian has been running a short series of articles on China. Shame their website hasn't been working terribly well lately.
Their Beijing correspondent Jonathan Watts is clearly something of a good egg, though how he manages to hop from China to Brazil and write such a well-researched feature article to boot I don't know. Perhaps he had a bit of help.
The articles are here:
A Miracle and a Menace
A Hunger Eating Up the World
A couple of paras are worth noting for some interesting stats:
Once self-sufficient in many primary products, China now gobbles up global resources. Imports rose 40% last year as it surged past the US as the most important player in global commodity markets. According to the Asian Development Bank, China took 40% of the world's steel, 30% of its coal, and 25% of its aluminium and copper. It is now a major importer of grain, soya and even rice because so much farmland is given over to factories, malls and housing.
In the past two years, Chinese demand has been credited with pushing international commodity prices to record levels. China has accounted for 40% of the growth in demand for oil over the past four years, overtaking Japan last year as the second biggest importer. With a trade surplus of $10.4bn, foreign exchange reserves of $745bn and a currency that strengthened this summer for the first time in 10 years, China can afford to spend. Recently, it has bought - or bid for - $24bn of US treasury bills, fleets of jumbo jets and companies such as IBM, Rover and Marconi.
Some of this is perhaps to be expected, since the Chinese comprise 20% of the world's population - but if China is using 40% of world resources than to me the maths doesn't work long term. Even after decades of underdevelopment due to Maoism etc. I make that twice as much as they are entitled to. Also:
Continue reading "Who's Hu and When's Wen Coming?" »
 The Boxing Day tsunami, which killed about 250,000 people pretty much outright, hit four or five countries. Some of the victims, especially in Thailand, were foreign tourists. And that, said President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan today in an interview with the BBC, is why the West was so swift to help then yet is so slow to make an impact now.
It may be unpalatable, but there may well be some truth in what he says. If the 'international community' is a force for good, then it at times like these that it should galvanize itself. But the relief effort - which is admittedly hampered by terrain, weather and political problems between India and Pakistan over Kashmir - has so far been slow.
Musharraf's other move today could well be interpreted as in indirect snub to the US. He's postponed the purchase of 16 F-16 fighter planes (worth around $400 million for the lot) so as to save money for reconstruction. It's a clever way of making his point, because the realpolitik of East-West relations often comes down to a couple of factors: aid, oil and defence.
So this is an astute way of reminding the US at least of Pakistan's dire position. Excerpt from the interview follows:
Continue reading "Why the West Abandoned Pakistan" »
 Blood on the streets of Paris again tonight, as rioting spirals out of control and protestors open fire on police.
What's going on in the French capital, paralleled by events in Britain a few days ago, is a result of alienation between people of different races, religions and cultures forced into conflict.
Something that's particularly telling is the title of a French government minister asked to comment on the violence.
The minister of social cohesion, Jean-Louis Borloo, said the government had to react "firmly" but added that France must also acknowledge its failure to deal with anger simmering in poor suburbs for decades.
"We cannot hide the truth: that for 30 years we have not done enough," he told France-2 television.
Countries in a harmonious state of existence don't need 'ministers of social cohesion'. They have social cohesion.
Continue reading "Paris Match" »
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.
|
|
