Friday, March 16, 2007
WHAT WE REALLY NEED
ConHom has a story about another Eurosceptic pressure group, this one to be called Global Vision (yawn). Plenty of criticism has been made in that posting, asking whether we don’t already have enough such outfits, which we certainly do a plenty. Problem is they keep missing the bigger picture, namely what our EU membership is really about.
Why are we in the EU? It’s not to stabilise our democracy, it’s not to improve our governance, it’s not for economic gain. Essentially it’s the same reason we have the special relationship to the US for. Our establishment sees itself as world power leader. After 1945 it was apparent that we didn’t have the strength and money to do this entirely on our own feet, hence the special relationship which could lower military technology costs and give us extra diplomatic clout by having a privileged access to the White House. Suez proved though that we couldn’t rely on the US enough. Hence the drive to get into European integration. And that’s really what it’s about, our place in the world.
So what we really need is a serious think-tank that can push debate and advocacy on this point. I pointed out in the past that the Conservatives desperately need this to be more effective as a party too. But above all it matters greatly to the future of our nation. Saying the EU is often inefficient et al is all nice and well, but that simply doesn’t cut it. Perhaps those inefficiencies are a price worth paying for the global position that EU-membership gives us. Perhaps it isn’t. Either way, any alternative strategies need to be embedded in an all-round foreign policy agenda which the right simply doesn’t have. There was an attempt some time ago that failed, the New Frontiers Foundation. That it failed tells us sadly how disoriented the British right is on these matters. Only when we can seriously match liberalish outfits like the Foreign Policy Centre or the Centre for European Reform do we stand a chance of intellectual and electoral renewal.
We owe that to our country and its future.
ConHom has a story about another Eurosceptic pressure group, this one to be called Global Vision (yawn). Plenty of criticism has been made in that posting, asking whether we don’t already have enough such outfits, which we certainly do a plenty. Problem is they keep missing the bigger picture, namely what our EU membership is really about.
Why are we in the EU? It’s not to stabilise our democracy, it’s not to improve our governance, it’s not for economic gain. Essentially it’s the same reason we have the special relationship to the US for. Our establishment sees itself as world power leader. After 1945 it was apparent that we didn’t have the strength and money to do this entirely on our own feet, hence the special relationship which could lower military technology costs and give us extra diplomatic clout by having a privileged access to the White House. Suez proved though that we couldn’t rely on the US enough. Hence the drive to get into European integration. And that’s really what it’s about, our place in the world.
So what we really need is a serious think-tank that can push debate and advocacy on this point. I pointed out in the past that the Conservatives desperately need this to be more effective as a party too. But above all it matters greatly to the future of our nation. Saying the EU is often inefficient et al is all nice and well, but that simply doesn’t cut it. Perhaps those inefficiencies are a price worth paying for the global position that EU-membership gives us. Perhaps it isn’t. Either way, any alternative strategies need to be embedded in an all-round foreign policy agenda which the right simply doesn’t have. There was an attempt some time ago that failed, the New Frontiers Foundation. That it failed tells us sadly how disoriented the British right is on these matters. Only when we can seriously match liberalish outfits like the Foreign Policy Centre or the Centre for European Reform do we stand a chance of intellectual and electoral renewal.
We owe that to our country and its future.
Labels: EU, global affairs, politics, USA
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
SPINELESS TORIES?
Some think the Tories are only doing all this green stuff to get good pr, others fear they're serious. Well, the truth is sort of both. As Conservatives put it privately the just-announced air travel taxes are politics, not policy, and aim at marking their opposition against the government, and with the hope it will increase tension between Brown and Milliband.
But it goes further than that. Whilst there is strong scepticism on the science of global warming, the view appears to be that the public has decided that the debate has been concluded decisively. So, the public wants action. So the politicians should act, despite their own scepticism and possibly better judgement.
Is this spineless? I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand politicians should do what voters want them to do. On the other hand I believe that politicians can and sometimes should provide leadership on important issues. This is one of the things that's been going wrong with the Consevatives under DC I think. On many other issues, Iraq and defence generally, on relations with the US, on public spending and many other issues we are just pandering to received wisdom, and abandoning the positions that are in fact right. If we don't stand for the right policies consistently, won't this make actually governing tremendously difficult as we face an uphill battle with public opinion instead of having built up public support consistently?
I for one, am at least quite doubtful.
Some think the Tories are only doing all this green stuff to get good pr, others fear they're serious. Well, the truth is sort of both. As Conservatives put it privately the just-announced air travel taxes are politics, not policy, and aim at marking their opposition against the government, and with the hope it will increase tension between Brown and Milliband.
But it goes further than that. Whilst there is strong scepticism on the science of global warming, the view appears to be that the public has decided that the debate has been concluded decisively. So, the public wants action. So the politicians should act, despite their own scepticism and possibly better judgement.
Is this spineless? I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand politicians should do what voters want them to do. On the other hand I believe that politicians can and sometimes should provide leadership on important issues. This is one of the things that's been going wrong with the Consevatives under DC I think. On many other issues, Iraq and defence generally, on relations with the US, on public spending and many other issues we are just pandering to received wisdom, and abandoning the positions that are in fact right. If we don't stand for the right policies consistently, won't this make actually governing tremendously difficult as we face an uphill battle with public opinion instead of having built up public support consistently?
I for one, am at least quite doubtful.
Labels: Conservatives, economy, environment, politics, USA
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
TRIDENT RENEWAL: WHY WE NEED IT
I want to keep this post as short as possible. Basically it is the right decision to renew Britain's nuclear weapons because we live in a strategic neighbourhood with other nuclear powers, and many potential ones. The motives of these are not always going to be benign, so we need to be sure the balance of power doesn'zt shift too much to our disadvantage.
The question now of course is, why not just rely on our allies? Personally I see no reason why we should lay our fate entirely in America's hands, who's to say that US interests will always overlap sufficiently for the US to remind our competitors of American nukes. Generally speaking probably yes, but the US is increasingly going to look away from (Western) Europe, for better or for worse.
So, why not rely on France? Despite many more differences than we have with the US, surely mere geography will ensure that French nukes protect us as well? Given some of the goals for British nuclear policy I will outline later, I think this is unlikely. In addition it misses the fact, that with France having the only nuclear weapons in Western Europe, it will get to call the shots on all matters regarding NATO and especially the EU. Polemically put, if we give up our nukes, there goes our opt-out out of the euro and common tax policy. If France gives up its nukes, its goodbye to the Common Agricultual Policy.
I assume that Western Europe will require a West European nuclear weapon for the foreseeable future, so why not switch British and French nukes to an EU system? As a eurosceptic I instinctively repel against this, but in theory this could one day be possible. Pigs might develop wings . . . . though with genetic engineering this might actually become possible one day. . .. Either way, this is not on the cards currently, and theoretically the EU might one day fail significantly enough for Britain to leave or the whole thing to collapse.
So, the prudent thing is to ensure that Western Europe has its "own" nukes, and that at least half of these are British.
I will provide more details on the reasons for such weaponry and how to change our nuclear weapons policy in the future in separate posts coming online later today.
I want to keep this post as short as possible. Basically it is the right decision to renew Britain's nuclear weapons because we live in a strategic neighbourhood with other nuclear powers, and many potential ones. The motives of these are not always going to be benign, so we need to be sure the balance of power doesn'zt shift too much to our disadvantage.
The question now of course is, why not just rely on our allies? Personally I see no reason why we should lay our fate entirely in America's hands, who's to say that US interests will always overlap sufficiently for the US to remind our competitors of American nukes. Generally speaking probably yes, but the US is increasingly going to look away from (Western) Europe, for better or for worse.
So, why not rely on France? Despite many more differences than we have with the US, surely mere geography will ensure that French nukes protect us as well? Given some of the goals for British nuclear policy I will outline later, I think this is unlikely. In addition it misses the fact, that with France having the only nuclear weapons in Western Europe, it will get to call the shots on all matters regarding NATO and especially the EU. Polemically put, if we give up our nukes, there goes our opt-out out of the euro and common tax policy. If France gives up its nukes, its goodbye to the Common Agricultual Policy.
I assume that Western Europe will require a West European nuclear weapon for the foreseeable future, so why not switch British and French nukes to an EU system? As a eurosceptic I instinctively repel against this, but in theory this could one day be possible. Pigs might develop wings . . . . though with genetic engineering this might actually become possible one day. . .. Either way, this is not on the cards currently, and theoretically the EU might one day fail significantly enough for Britain to leave or the whole thing to collapse.
So, the prudent thing is to ensure that Western Europe has its "own" nukes, and that at least half of these are British.
I will provide more details on the reasons for such weaponry and how to change our nuclear weapons policy in the future in separate posts coming online later today.
Labels: defence, EU, France, global affairs, nuclear weapons, USA
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
DISPIRITING TIMES
I know I have these sorts of moans every once in a while. Recently I have been having one of those phases again, where everything just seems to be going wrong for no good reason and people who should know better don’t.
Look at the Lebanon war’s aftermath. The outcome of Tzahal’s very lacklustre performance has left the Hizb’allah in place, albeit weakened. But what is happening now is that Lebanese and international troops are going to moved into position in between the Hizb’allah’s fighters. As these forces are neither willing nor capable of disarming the militia, that means that inevitable there will be a second round of fighting at some point in the future. And when it comes to that Israel will find itself seriously hamstrung by the presence of these forces. Diplomatically this will make serious Israeli action nigh on impossible. The result will be that Hizb’allah will become ever more stronger and aquire ever better weapons from Iran with ever more destructive consequences. Tremendously stupid outcome. Peace will only come about when the Hizb’allah ceases to exist as an armed force. This should be clear to any decent analyst. Perhaps that is the reason why so far troop commitments have been so weakly.
But talking of which, if all these countries can stump up thousands of troops for a dangerously counterproductive mission in Lebanon, why not reroute them and deploy them to Afghanistan. Here there are some real difficulties, and here it matters as we cannot allow the Taliban to retake the country. With the highly unpopular prospect of German forces being deloyed beyond their breaking point, I wonder why the Italians and the French can send their forces further eastwards. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the sly suspicion that there are people, particularly in Paris, who wouldn’t mind failure in Afghanistan too much as it is currently a NATO-mission.
I remember Geoffrey van Orden warning that the possible failure by NATO would do massive and possibly irrevocable political damage to the alliance. Together with ever stronger anti-Americanism this could finally seal Britain’s fate by taking away our alternatives to being sucked into the EU ever further. Actually, I didn’t really expect much of a debate about this. Still despressing though.
Another point I have to raise is the possibilty that some of the Afghan troubles are due to Britain being the de-facto lead nation in the south. After the desastrous conduct of Britain in Iraq recently, the Taliban would be quite likely to conclude that this former lion was already half on the run. So why not prod and prick him a bit more and he might grant you a great victory by buckling under political pressure and doing a completely runner. And when you’ve got him on the run why not take a few more shots, he might even give himself up completely. There is no such thing as conciliation toward totalitarian and fanatical enemies. All such moves will be seen as weakness, which will simply invite more attacks. When will we learn?
And this is just the foreign arena. At home we have more immigration nonsense doing the rounds. I’m sorry but we if we let countries into the EU, we have to give them full membership. If we don’t they will simply go adrift and go slack on maintaining the already shaky membership conditions. The same will be the case for other potential new members. Once they start seeing that they will not be admitted properly they might stop trying. This will probably mean that they will also stop reforming their governance structures. The consequence will be less stability and security in the EU’s neighbourhood. This is exactly the thing the EU exists to prevent. That people don’t seem willing to see this simply point just annoys me.
If the consequence of more EU-migrants is wage pressure that is a problem that can and should be fixed at home. As for the real problem of poverty and unemployment in Britain, that is unrelated to immigration. This is down to economic overcentralisation withouth labour flexibility, to rotten educational and social circumstances of Britain’s poorest, who simply are either unwilling or unable to take up any kind of employment. This is the big problem underlying the current row. But nobody seems to be paying much attention to their plight.
Part of this is the media’s fault for pandering to headline grabbing tales of foreign welfare scroungers or alternatively of rampant racism in Britain. Because I’m in a bad mood I’m going to pick on the Daily Mail in particular. What we see here is a complete misunderstanding of some of Britain’s big challenges. We need to be engaged in the EU, and accepting migrant workers from new member states is a price we have to be wiling to pay, if indeed it is a cost, rather than an advantage. Ok, so I’m Eurosceptic too, but the Mail doesn’t seem to be serious about this. Sure it’s views on the EU are far more hostile than mine, by far. What matters however is the context in which this debate has Britain positioned. Because the one thing that really drives me bonkers about the Mail is its anti-Americanism, which certainly wouldn’t look out of place in the Indy or Groan. Now, fine you may say, the Daily Mail is for isolationism, which would certainly fit its generally closed-minded and parochial approach. Theoretically this is a legitimate view to take. However in practice this is simple nonsense. Spreading anti-Americanism is absolute poison for the Eurosceptic cause. The only political forces in Britain that can utilise anti-American sentiment are those of staunch Eurofederalism. Isolationism, for better or for worse, is a non-option in British politics. If you really want to keep us out of the EU, the attractiveness of the alternative avenues of influence, the special relationship and NATO needs to be fostered. In the current circumstances there is little emotional energy focused on the EU, but far too much on America. So if the Daily Mail wants to keep us out of the European superstate perhaps its commentary and reporting ought to reflect this. Blaming more and more of our ills from terrorism to trashy television on America will simply drive the British into the arms of Eurofederalism. Can the Mail’s chiefs really be so misguided as not to see this?
Just some things I needed to get off my chest. I’m feeling better already.
I know I have these sorts of moans every once in a while. Recently I have been having one of those phases again, where everything just seems to be going wrong for no good reason and people who should know better don’t.
Look at the Lebanon war’s aftermath. The outcome of Tzahal’s very lacklustre performance has left the Hizb’allah in place, albeit weakened. But what is happening now is that Lebanese and international troops are going to moved into position in between the Hizb’allah’s fighters. As these forces are neither willing nor capable of disarming the militia, that means that inevitable there will be a second round of fighting at some point in the future. And when it comes to that Israel will find itself seriously hamstrung by the presence of these forces. Diplomatically this will make serious Israeli action nigh on impossible. The result will be that Hizb’allah will become ever more stronger and aquire ever better weapons from Iran with ever more destructive consequences. Tremendously stupid outcome. Peace will only come about when the Hizb’allah ceases to exist as an armed force. This should be clear to any decent analyst. Perhaps that is the reason why so far troop commitments have been so weakly.
But talking of which, if all these countries can stump up thousands of troops for a dangerously counterproductive mission in Lebanon, why not reroute them and deploy them to Afghanistan. Here there are some real difficulties, and here it matters as we cannot allow the Taliban to retake the country. With the highly unpopular prospect of German forces being deloyed beyond their breaking point, I wonder why the Italians and the French can send their forces further eastwards. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the sly suspicion that there are people, particularly in Paris, who wouldn’t mind failure in Afghanistan too much as it is currently a NATO-mission.
I remember Geoffrey van Orden warning that the possible failure by NATO would do massive and possibly irrevocable political damage to the alliance. Together with ever stronger anti-Americanism this could finally seal Britain’s fate by taking away our alternatives to being sucked into the EU ever further. Actually, I didn’t really expect much of a debate about this. Still despressing though.
Another point I have to raise is the possibilty that some of the Afghan troubles are due to Britain being the de-facto lead nation in the south. After the desastrous conduct of Britain in Iraq recently, the Taliban would be quite likely to conclude that this former lion was already half on the run. So why not prod and prick him a bit more and he might grant you a great victory by buckling under political pressure and doing a completely runner. And when you’ve got him on the run why not take a few more shots, he might even give himself up completely. There is no such thing as conciliation toward totalitarian and fanatical enemies. All such moves will be seen as weakness, which will simply invite more attacks. When will we learn?
And this is just the foreign arena. At home we have more immigration nonsense doing the rounds. I’m sorry but we if we let countries into the EU, we have to give them full membership. If we don’t they will simply go adrift and go slack on maintaining the already shaky membership conditions. The same will be the case for other potential new members. Once they start seeing that they will not be admitted properly they might stop trying. This will probably mean that they will also stop reforming their governance structures. The consequence will be less stability and security in the EU’s neighbourhood. This is exactly the thing the EU exists to prevent. That people don’t seem willing to see this simply point just annoys me.
If the consequence of more EU-migrants is wage pressure that is a problem that can and should be fixed at home. As for the real problem of poverty and unemployment in Britain, that is unrelated to immigration. This is down to economic overcentralisation withouth labour flexibility, to rotten educational and social circumstances of Britain’s poorest, who simply are either unwilling or unable to take up any kind of employment. This is the big problem underlying the current row. But nobody seems to be paying much attention to their plight.
Part of this is the media’s fault for pandering to headline grabbing tales of foreign welfare scroungers or alternatively of rampant racism in Britain. Because I’m in a bad mood I’m going to pick on the Daily Mail in particular. What we see here is a complete misunderstanding of some of Britain’s big challenges. We need to be engaged in the EU, and accepting migrant workers from new member states is a price we have to be wiling to pay, if indeed it is a cost, rather than an advantage. Ok, so I’m Eurosceptic too, but the Mail doesn’t seem to be serious about this. Sure it’s views on the EU are far more hostile than mine, by far. What matters however is the context in which this debate has Britain positioned. Because the one thing that really drives me bonkers about the Mail is its anti-Americanism, which certainly wouldn’t look out of place in the Indy or Groan. Now, fine you may say, the Daily Mail is for isolationism, which would certainly fit its generally closed-minded and parochial approach. Theoretically this is a legitimate view to take. However in practice this is simple nonsense. Spreading anti-Americanism is absolute poison for the Eurosceptic cause. The only political forces in Britain that can utilise anti-American sentiment are those of staunch Eurofederalism. Isolationism, for better or for worse, is a non-option in British politics. If you really want to keep us out of the EU, the attractiveness of the alternative avenues of influence, the special relationship and NATO needs to be fostered. In the current circumstances there is little emotional energy focused on the EU, but far too much on America. So if the Daily Mail wants to keep us out of the European superstate perhaps its commentary and reporting ought to reflect this. Blaming more and more of our ills from terrorism to trashy television on America will simply drive the British into the arms of Eurofederalism. Can the Mail’s chiefs really be so misguided as not to see this?
Just some things I needed to get off my chest. I’m feeling better already.
Labels: Afghanistan, economy, EU, immigration, Israel, Lebanon, media, politics, terrorism, USA
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
"America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Bush said. "The best way to break this addiction is through technology."
Well, he’s got the wording right, but then he usually does – it’s the implementation that normally leave to be desired . . .
Labels: defence, economy, global affairs, terrorism, USA
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
DEALING WITH IRAN: WHY WE NEED AN ISRAELI SECURITY GUARANTEE
Is it time for an "Osiran" strike? Is the solution to the current crisis about Iran's nuclear weapons programme a repeat of Israel's famed attack on Saddam's Osirak facility, or O'Chirac if you prefer that spelling?
I can see that many people are hoping this is going to happen. In a way it's a dream scenario: Israel does the actual dangerous and dirty work, the Coalition can huff and puff and indignantly protest how Israel has destroyed all its efforts at a peaceful solution etc., and in the end the problem is fixed or at least delayed. Equally the strategic fall-out would only hit Israel in the form of Iranian proxy retaliation via Hizballah and possibly Hamas, so we're in the clear on that one as well. Phew.
On the other hand if Britain and her allies take military steps against Iran there is going to be serious violence in Iraq, the conditions for which are already in place. As Iranian agents have reportedly been observing targets in Western cities, we may well even get some heavy hits on the "home front". Well, better let Israel take the brunt until we can find some magic wand to make the nuclear problem disappear.
One thing is clear however, a military strike by Israel alone will not suffice to end the Iranian programme it can only delay it a bit. Still it is an option Israeli policy makers will be considering now. And the timing is becoming more urgent. As has been pointed out by Richard North and the Wall Street Journal, Iran will soon have a new set of high-tech air defences from Russia (SA-15 Gauntlet, to be precise). These new systems would be good enough to make a single strike by Israel ineffective. That means that if Israel wants a sensible, i.e. non-nuclear option against Iranian nukes, it has until about March to do so, when the Russian systems are up and running. After that the options of dealing with Iran via air strikes will only be open to the US Air Force's stealth bombers, F-117s and B-2s.
The consequence of this situation is that Israel must either act now, or completely place its fate in the hands of the US and the EU-3, not to mention Russia and China. If you were an Israeli what would you be thinking?
So an Israeli strike is well on the table, and there is plenty of rumour about this sloshing around too.
But is this really desirable? I don't think so. There is a real risk that Iranian counter measures would spill over on to non-Israeli targets, including British ones. After all an attack by the demonised "Zionist entity" would be the perfect ideological rallying tool for Iran's current leader. He has something of a pedigree here after all. So, who's to say an Israeli strike couldn't be used as an excuse to recruit for and launch a serious jihadist campaign in the region and beyond. This would clearly hurt our interests, though this is a more speculative outcome.
Another problem I see is that diplomacy may still have some hope in Iran. Perhaps not in changing the ambitions of the current leader, but perhaps by slowing the programme down enough for an internal regime change to occur (or at least some moderation). An Israeli strike would clearly be a further step to full on violent escalation and I don't think we are politically or militarily entirely prepared for that yet. If we ever will be.
From this problem there are two separate courses of remedial action to be taken.
Firstly, there must be a way to stop Russia providing Iran with the Gauntlet missile system.
Secondly, and this is the key point of this posting, we have to find a way to dissuade Israel from attacking. Israel has many a good reason to carry out a strike, if it cannot depend on anyone else for its security. So an obvious step to take now would be for the US and the EU-3 to offer a clear security guarantee to Israel. Such a guarantee would bind all countries security together in this instance and by putting Israel's security into the diplomatic mix openly and comprehensively would remove Israel's need for action.
This would be a logical and necessary step, so it will be eventually taken, when it's too late, as these things always are. Nonetheless, it's simple really, it only requires a bit of political foresight. So, fingers crossed.
Is it time for an "Osiran" strike? Is the solution to the current crisis about Iran's nuclear weapons programme a repeat of Israel's famed attack on Saddam's Osirak facility, or O'Chirac if you prefer that spelling?
I can see that many people are hoping this is going to happen. In a way it's a dream scenario: Israel does the actual dangerous and dirty work, the Coalition can huff and puff and indignantly protest how Israel has destroyed all its efforts at a peaceful solution etc., and in the end the problem is fixed or at least delayed. Equally the strategic fall-out would only hit Israel in the form of Iranian proxy retaliation via Hizballah and possibly Hamas, so we're in the clear on that one as well. Phew.
On the other hand if Britain and her allies take military steps against Iran there is going to be serious violence in Iraq, the conditions for which are already in place. As Iranian agents have reportedly been observing targets in Western cities, we may well even get some heavy hits on the "home front". Well, better let Israel take the brunt until we can find some magic wand to make the nuclear problem disappear.
One thing is clear however, a military strike by Israel alone will not suffice to end the Iranian programme it can only delay it a bit. Still it is an option Israeli policy makers will be considering now. And the timing is becoming more urgent. As has been pointed out by Richard North and the Wall Street Journal, Iran will soon have a new set of high-tech air defences from Russia (SA-15 Gauntlet, to be precise). These new systems would be good enough to make a single strike by Israel ineffective. That means that if Israel wants a sensible, i.e. non-nuclear option against Iranian nukes, it has until about March to do so, when the Russian systems are up and running. After that the options of dealing with Iran via air strikes will only be open to the US Air Force's stealth bombers, F-117s and B-2s.
The consequence of this situation is that Israel must either act now, or completely place its fate in the hands of the US and the EU-3, not to mention Russia and China. If you were an Israeli what would you be thinking?
So an Israeli strike is well on the table, and there is plenty of rumour about this sloshing around too.
But is this really desirable? I don't think so. There is a real risk that Iranian counter measures would spill over on to non-Israeli targets, including British ones. After all an attack by the demonised "Zionist entity" would be the perfect ideological rallying tool for Iran's current leader. He has something of a pedigree here after all. So, who's to say an Israeli strike couldn't be used as an excuse to recruit for and launch a serious jihadist campaign in the region and beyond. This would clearly hurt our interests, though this is a more speculative outcome.
Another problem I see is that diplomacy may still have some hope in Iran. Perhaps not in changing the ambitions of the current leader, but perhaps by slowing the programme down enough for an internal regime change to occur (or at least some moderation). An Israeli strike would clearly be a further step to full on violent escalation and I don't think we are politically or militarily entirely prepared for that yet. If we ever will be.
From this problem there are two separate courses of remedial action to be taken.
Firstly, there must be a way to stop Russia providing Iran with the Gauntlet missile system.
Secondly, and this is the key point of this posting, we have to find a way to dissuade Israel from attacking. Israel has many a good reason to carry out a strike, if it cannot depend on anyone else for its security. So an obvious step to take now would be for the US and the EU-3 to offer a clear security guarantee to Israel. Such a guarantee would bind all countries security together in this instance and by putting Israel's security into the diplomatic mix openly and comprehensively would remove Israel's need for action.
This would be a logical and necessary step, so it will be eventually taken, when it's too late, as these things always are. Nonetheless, it's simple really, it only requires a bit of political foresight. So, fingers crossed.
Labels: defence, EU, global affairs, Iran, Iraq, Israel, nuclear weapons, Russia, USA
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
“BOMB AL JAZEERAH!”- WHY?
So we see the return of the story about how Bush allegedly wanted to bomb the headquarters of the Al Jazeerah tv channel in Quatar. I don’t know whether or not this is accurate but there is something else I have been wondering about: why would he even consider it? I am just assuming from hearsay that al-J’s reporting of Western military effort is biased against the Coalition. But if that’s what was bugging Bush, he would have been singling out al-J rather unfairly, given that there are plenty of other tv channels that are not noted for their enthusiasm for the war in Iraq. Some of them rather closer to home too.
Ok, so perhaps he really is the kind of war-mongeringly thoughtless nutter that the anti-war likes to make him out to be. Despite being a fully committed pro-American über-hawk I cannot of course rule this out theoretically. Well, I’ll leave that to the theorists then.
Another possibility that also can’t be discounted is that he was joking. Who knows? He might have been discussing the difficulty of getting any kind of good PR, and after mulling over the frustration of al-J specifically, might have jested, “we should just bomb them!”. If that were the case I can also see why no one would want this published because it would appear rather immature to be making jokes like that in the midst of a war crisis. And that’s still an understatement.
But here’s my guess at what could have been the driving factor. Apologies for the fuzzy detail and I don’t have any links at present, but I remember there was a story about al-J paying insurgents to carry out attacks so they had some exciting material. Additionally there were a whole host of allegations about collusion between al-J reporters and insurgents. I don’t know if those stories ever really got substantiated, but it would be quite a serious situation if it were true. Perhaps Bush indeed suggested to Blair that bombing al-J’s HQ might be an option of dealing with the problem. To my knowledge nothing was ever done. So the problem I see for Bush in regards to this memo is that it shows he had evidence of al-J/insurgent cooperation and then did nothing about it. This would be a real damper in regards to his standing with more hawkish types. Remember of course when this supposed discussion took place, frustration and even anger was on the boil about Bush N’ Blair’s refusal to send enough troops in the right fashion to win in Iraq (see archives of timmyhawk and Weekly Standard ad nauseam). Bush and Blair may simply now be trying to avoid coming under even more pressure from within their own camps.
There is one final reason for suppressing the memo. It’s a memo of a confidential, i.e. secret, deliberation between heads of government. If such conversations can in future not take place because of an overbearing fear of unprofessional civil servants leaking anything that tickles their fancy, communication between our governments will become ever more difficult, and in consequence it will become evermore harder to act. Particularly damaging to the Government in times of war.
Well that’s my quid’s worth, we’ll see one day I suppose. We always do in the end.
So we see the return of the story about how Bush allegedly wanted to bomb the headquarters of the Al Jazeerah tv channel in Quatar. I don’t know whether or not this is accurate but there is something else I have been wondering about: why would he even consider it? I am just assuming from hearsay that al-J’s reporting of Western military effort is biased against the Coalition. But if that’s what was bugging Bush, he would have been singling out al-J rather unfairly, given that there are plenty of other tv channels that are not noted for their enthusiasm for the war in Iraq. Some of them rather closer to home too.
Ok, so perhaps he really is the kind of war-mongeringly thoughtless nutter that the anti-war likes to make him out to be. Despite being a fully committed pro-American über-hawk I cannot of course rule this out theoretically. Well, I’ll leave that to the theorists then.
Another possibility that also can’t be discounted is that he was joking. Who knows? He might have been discussing the difficulty of getting any kind of good PR, and after mulling over the frustration of al-J specifically, might have jested, “we should just bomb them!”. If that were the case I can also see why no one would want this published because it would appear rather immature to be making jokes like that in the midst of a war crisis. And that’s still an understatement.
But here’s my guess at what could have been the driving factor. Apologies for the fuzzy detail and I don’t have any links at present, but I remember there was a story about al-J paying insurgents to carry out attacks so they had some exciting material. Additionally there were a whole host of allegations about collusion between al-J reporters and insurgents. I don’t know if those stories ever really got substantiated, but it would be quite a serious situation if it were true. Perhaps Bush indeed suggested to Blair that bombing al-J’s HQ might be an option of dealing with the problem. To my knowledge nothing was ever done. So the problem I see for Bush in regards to this memo is that it shows he had evidence of al-J/insurgent cooperation and then did nothing about it. This would be a real damper in regards to his standing with more hawkish types. Remember of course when this supposed discussion took place, frustration and even anger was on the boil about Bush N’ Blair’s refusal to send enough troops in the right fashion to win in Iraq (see archives of timmyhawk and Weekly Standard ad nauseam). Bush and Blair may simply now be trying to avoid coming under even more pressure from within their own camps.
There is one final reason for suppressing the memo. It’s a memo of a confidential, i.e. secret, deliberation between heads of government. If such conversations can in future not take place because of an overbearing fear of unprofessional civil servants leaking anything that tickles their fancy, communication between our governments will become ever more difficult, and in consequence it will become evermore harder to act. Particularly damaging to the Government in times of war.
Well that’s my quid’s worth, we’ll see one day I suppose. We always do in the end.
Labels: defence, Iraq, media, terrorism, USA
Friday, January 13, 2006
ARE WE READY FOR WAR WITH IRAN?
It seems like the situation is beginning to hot up for real this time. The EU-3 have made it clear that referral to the UN Security Council is now seriously on the table. Whilst in itself that may not be daunting challenge to the current Iranian regime, it does however signal a change in EU attitudes. Additionally, taking the issue to the UN marks the end of the kind of conciliatory diplomacy that the EU has been trying on its for the past 2-3 years. The next phase now will probably be a joint effort with the US at coercive diplomacy. How long that will last is hard to say. The possible end point of such an approach could well be military action. By whom and under what circumstances remains to be seen. An Isreali strike by March is a real possibility now. That may well be bluffing on Israel's part, but that bluffing is certainly aimed at getting others to act. To be clear, diplomacy may well achieve the goal of stopping Iran from getting nukes. But this will only be possible if there is a united diplomatic front against this, and a united Western military commitment to enforce a denial of nuclear weapons to Ahmadinejad's hands.
So, we have to prepare ourselves mentally and practically for war. Only that way can we build up the necessary pressure for diplomacy to work. Which again proves the old saying: si vis pacem, para bellum!
It seems like the situation is beginning to hot up for real this time. The EU-3 have made it clear that referral to the UN Security Council is now seriously on the table. Whilst in itself that may not be daunting challenge to the current Iranian regime, it does however signal a change in EU attitudes. Additionally, taking the issue to the UN marks the end of the kind of conciliatory diplomacy that the EU has been trying on its for the past 2-3 years. The next phase now will probably be a joint effort with the US at coercive diplomacy. How long that will last is hard to say. The possible end point of such an approach could well be military action. By whom and under what circumstances remains to be seen. An Isreali strike by March is a real possibility now. That may well be bluffing on Israel's part, but that bluffing is certainly aimed at getting others to act. To be clear, diplomacy may well achieve the goal of stopping Iran from getting nukes. But this will only be possible if there is a united diplomatic front against this, and a united Western military commitment to enforce a denial of nuclear weapons to Ahmadinejad's hands.
So, we have to prepare ourselves mentally and practically for war. Only that way can we build up the necessary pressure for diplomacy to work. Which again proves the old saying: si vis pacem, para bellum!
Labels: defence, EU, global affairs, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons, USA
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
TIM MONTGOMERIE ON COOL NEW SPECCIE SITE
I quite like the redesigned Spectator website. There’s a links section, never a bad thing, and there’s a news aggregator bit which collects the most substantive news items around. Whilst I have been sceptical about “oficial” blogs in the past, the Speccie’s blog is quite readable. There’s a good entry there by Tim Montgomerie who normally edits ConservativeHome on the still dire prospects for British conservatism, not just in form of the Tory party, but as a general movement. He points to the relatively more successful right in America. I am particularly pleased that he shares my concern, voiced previously, that the British right is very lacking on the think-tank front. What’s needed is unfortunately more money. That’s not quite so easy to fix I fear. But the more voices point to the problem the better.
I quite like the redesigned Spectator website. There’s a links section, never a bad thing, and there’s a news aggregator bit which collects the most substantive news items around. Whilst I have been sceptical about “oficial” blogs in the past, the Speccie’s blog is quite readable. There’s a good entry there by Tim Montgomerie who normally edits ConservativeHome on the still dire prospects for British conservatism, not just in form of the Tory party, but as a general movement. He points to the relatively more successful right in America. I am particularly pleased that he shares my concern, voiced previously, that the British right is very lacking on the think-tank front. What’s needed is unfortunately more money. That’s not quite so easy to fix I fear. But the more voices point to the problem the better.
Labels: Conservatives, media, politics, USA
Sunday, November 06, 2005
MORE NOTES: AZERIS VOTE, GUY FAWKES, IRAQ INQUIRY, TROOP MORALE AND QUIZZES
Very busy in my real life at the moment so still no proper posts . . .
Very busy in my real life at the moment so still no proper posts . . .
There are elections in Azerbaijan today. The Economist has a good primer on this, Katy of blogrel is there now and Eurasianet is a good source for incoming news. This is quite an important event in a region whose strategic relevance has grown due to oil and being in the neighbourhood of Iran and the Nastystans. How the elections run today will have important ramifications. Ideally the elections will run smoothly and be fair. This in turn will enable the country to reform, make Western engagement such as military bases acceptable and help a peaceful resolution of the Karabagh conflict with Armenia. If this doesn't happen, and there is a real risk of this, there are two basic scenarios that are problematic. If incumbent holds on to power illicitly and the West stays, we will be compromising our moral standing and credibility. On the other hand, if we pull out, this might heighten the propensity of the Azerbaijan regime to seek a military solution to the conflict with Armenia. Needless to say such a war would be catastrophic for all involved but that's never stopped unstable dictatorships from going down that route for their egos and to cement crumbling regimes at home. As long as there is Western engagement in the region and the country, the West will try to quell any war as this would be deeply damaging to our interests. So I think we have a bit of a dilemma to solve if the current regime hangs on to power. (As for solving the Karabagh conflict, the first rule that outsiders should lay down and enforce would be one of absolute non-violence. And whichever side violates the ceasefire should then be treated as an illegitimate aggressor.)
Remember, remember, the fifth of November . . . The 400th time this year round. Clive Davis has some disappointing observations to make. Certainly the past five years the tradition of Bonfire Night has been pretty hollowed out. While I was at uni there was not a single event, but there were countless Halloween parties. I have nothing against Halloween, seeing as it connects to warm childhood memories, but it is still a shame that it is driving out Guy Fawkes. But that's the thing you see, if you abolish or downgrade national traditions like that what you end up with is not some bold global humanist utopia but rather more you will end with the resulting vacuum being filled by the commercially most available alternative. And that will normally be American for better or for worse. (I wrote an essay on Guy Fawkes' enduring relevance yesterday, but the footnoting went awol so you'll have to wait a little for that.) On the other hand, as our penchant for turning everything into a booze-fuelled mess, we all know what any festivities in this country tend to descend to . . . ;)
By the sounds of it so far this looks like an Iraq inquiry that makes sense: The failure to plan for the aftermath is likely to be at the heart of the committee’s inquiries now that Iraq is in the grip of a violent insurgency, says the Tory MP Douglas Hogg, one of the inquiry’s architects and who is canvassing support for the move.
For once we might actually get an investigation into the management of the war, particularly the post-invasion planning, rather than the endless and irrelevant arguments about wmd.
Sticking with Iraq, news is in that the stress levels of our troops have now reached those of World War Two. Things must have got much worse in Iraq, right? Well, not quite. It's mainly down to a fear of being prosecuted for killing an insurgent. The trial against seven Paras that collapsed this week is a good case in point. Despite no credible evidence for wrongdoing and witnesses who were allegedly being paid to make stuff up, it is fairly bizarre that the whole sordid affair could be drawn out for more than two years. DumbJohn is on form on this.
And now: quiz time! Oh dear, again? I hear you poor reader groan, but I'm having too much fun with this:
Sticking with Iraq, news is in that the stress levels of our troops have now reached those of World War Two. Things must have got much worse in Iraq, right? Well, not quite. It's mainly down to a fear of being prosecuted for killing an insurgent. The trial against seven Paras that collapsed this week is a good case in point. Despite no credible evidence for wrongdoing and witnesses who were allegedly being paid to make stuff up, it is fairly bizarre that the whole sordid affair could be drawn out for more than two years. DumbJohn is on form on this.
And now: quiz time! Oh dear, again? I hear you poor reader groan, but I'm having too much fun with this:
| You Are 50% Boyish and 50% Girlish |
You are pretty evenly split down the middle - a total eunuch. Okay, kidding about the eunuch part. But you do get along with both sexes. You reject traditional gender roles. However, you don't actively fight them. You're just you. You don't try to be what people expect you to be. |
Although not immediately apparent fromt his blog's politics, but in my real life this is probably quite true:
| Your Hidden Talent |
 Your natural talent is interpersonal relations and dealing with people. You communicate well and are able to bring disparate groups together. Your calming presence helps everything go more smoothly. People crave your praise and complements. |
Labels: Armenia, Azerbaijan, blogging and the blogger, defence, Iraq, nation, USA
Thursday, November 03, 2005
SOME NOTES ON THE PAST WEEK
Am I the only one who notices an uncanny resemblance between this EU Referendum posting and this comment piece in the Sunday Times? Ok, well the Sunday Times article mentions the must-read arrse, but otherwise it's hard to see any other ground being covered there. Still, I suppose it's good to see these arguments moving from the blogosphere to the "proper" media.
Staying with defence and the Times, Saturday had a strange comment about the Navy's future:
Am I the only one who notices an uncanny resemblance between this EU Referendum posting and this comment piece in the Sunday Times? Ok, well the Sunday Times article mentions the must-read arrse, but otherwise it's hard to see any other ground being covered there. Still, I suppose it's good to see these arguments moving from the blogosphere to the "proper" media.
Staying with defence and the Times, Saturday had a strange comment about the Navy's future:
The Navy . . . .seems still to be lobbying for the assets to deploy in force anywhere in the world. In any inter-service competition for resources, it must, and will, take third place.
Yes, the Army is more important, but the RAF? There is, to be clear, only a very limited need for an air force at the moment. What our forces need are deployable and close-in support assets, such as would be ideally provided by aircraft carriers equipped with the Joint Strike Fighter. We could hope . . .
Lot of work in those regards to do for the next Conservative prime minister. From the most recent polling it looks like Cameron will be it. Not that he's spent an awful lot of time on saying what his defence policy would be, but a BBC poll says Party members are going to vote him in. Whether it's Davis or Cameron, I am confident that the Conservatives will carry the day in 2009/2010. Having so far only followed this leadership race in print for the past three months I was pretty amazed at the visual difference between the two Davids. Whereas Cameron always seems to look fresh, healthy and energetic, Davis looks clapped-out and finished. I guess that will shift the balance in Cameron's favour too.
On the other hand perhaps the BBC is still continuing its practice of presenting people it doesn't like in a bad ligh. Evidence for this could be seen on Sunday's The Politics Show when they interviewed noted Eurosceptic Daniel Hannan, he had a sinister menacing shadow over the left half of his face, funny that with all the technology available in terms of make-up, lighting and computer retouching something like that should still happen . . . (Not that these methods are restricted to this side of the Big Pond mind you.)
While we're on the issue of that show, am I the only one who thinks that the presenters' insistence of not wearing ties makes the whole programme look a little tacky and akin to some Sunday afternoon football chat show?
Talking of politics on the BBC though, is it possible that the coverage has actually gotten fairer? For example on Newsnight they had an interview with two American experts (one was Dick Morris) about Bush's remaining years in office after such a week of crisis, all of which was possible without the usual anti-war and Bush-bashing claptrap clouding out sober analysis as used to be the case for the often. And again, on the Politics Show Sunday morning, the Tories interviewed were given proper space to speak and even the appropriate respect. Has the BBC seen the journalistic light? Or is it scared what will happen to its future once the Conservatives are back in power?
If you happen to be curious about the further developments on the German election front, I will be bringing an update soon given the current troubles (includes more demonic lighting, what's going on . . . ?!). I see that the Times seems to agree with my call for a second round of elections. Looking back though I will say that going for another election campaign now will be a better option than it would have been in late September. The leftward shift apparent in Schroeder's social democrats should lead to a workable majority for a Christian-democrat/right-liberal coalition that I have argued here occasionally.
So, David Blunkett has gone from office again. Well, I don't really know my way around the ministerial code of conduct, so I can't say anything useful about that. The only thing I noticed again, is that here was a Labour minister leaving office due to some form of corruption. Whilst that is good in itself, it masks the fact that there has been quite a dearth in the past years when it comes to ministers being sacked or resigning due to incompetence. And to be sure, there's been plenty of it: Geoff Hoon anyone . . . ? In the broader scheme of things I would say that incompetent Government is a bigger problem than incompetent Government and I think we should shift the balance of accountability in back in that direction.
As a side-note, it is quite funny really that Blunkett sat on the board of a company specialising in paternity testing isn't it?
To end this post on a gripe though, I was intermittently watching Sky News during the day. Is David Blunkett's resignation the only event worthy of reporting the whole day?
Lot of work in those regards to do for the next Conservative prime minister. From the most recent polling it looks like Cameron will be it. Not that he's spent an awful lot of time on saying what his defence policy would be, but a BBC poll says Party members are going to vote him in. Whether it's Davis or Cameron, I am confident that the Conservatives will carry the day in 2009/2010. Having so far only followed this leadership race in print for the past three months I was pretty amazed at the visual difference between the two Davids. Whereas Cameron always seems to look fresh, healthy and energetic, Davis looks clapped-out and finished. I guess that will shift the balance in Cameron's favour too.
On the other hand perhaps the BBC is still continuing its practice of presenting people it doesn't like in a bad ligh. Evidence for this could be seen on Sunday's The Politics Show when they interviewed noted Eurosceptic Daniel Hannan, he had a sinister menacing shadow over the left half of his face, funny that with all the technology available in terms of make-up, lighting and computer retouching something like that should still happen . . . (Not that these methods are restricted to this side of the Big Pond mind you.)
While we're on the issue of that show, am I the only one who thinks that the presenters' insistence of not wearing ties makes the whole programme look a little tacky and akin to some Sunday afternoon football chat show?
Talking of politics on the BBC though, is it possible that the coverage has actually gotten fairer? For example on Newsnight they had an interview with two American experts (one was Dick Morris) about Bush's remaining years in office after such a week of crisis, all of which was possible without the usual anti-war and Bush-bashing claptrap clouding out sober analysis as used to be the case for the often. And again, on the Politics Show Sunday morning, the Tories interviewed were given proper space to speak and even the appropriate respect. Has the BBC seen the journalistic light? Or is it scared what will happen to its future once the Conservatives are back in power?
If you happen to be curious about the further developments on the German election front, I will be bringing an update soon given the current troubles (includes more demonic lighting, what's going on . . . ?!). I see that the Times seems to agree with my call for a second round of elections. Looking back though I will say that going for another election campaign now will be a better option than it would have been in late September. The leftward shift apparent in Schroeder's social democrats should lead to a workable majority for a Christian-democrat/right-liberal coalition that I have argued here occasionally.
So, David Blunkett has gone from office again. Well, I don't really know my way around the ministerial code of conduct, so I can't say anything useful about that. The only thing I noticed again, is that here was a Labour minister leaving office due to some form of corruption. Whilst that is good in itself, it masks the fact that there has been quite a dearth in the past years when it comes to ministers being sacked or resigning due to incompetence. And to be sure, there's been plenty of it: Geoff Hoon anyone . . . ? In the broader scheme of things I would say that incompetent Government is a bigger problem than incompetent Government and I think we should shift the balance of accountability in back in that direction.
As a side-note, it is quite funny really that Blunkett sat on the board of a company specialising in paternity testing isn't it?
To end this post on a gripe though, I was intermittently watching Sky News during the day. Is David Blunkett's resignation the only event worthy of reporting the whole day?
Labels: Conservatives, defence, Germany, Iraq, media, politics, USA
Monday, September 26, 2005
THE FUTURE OF BRITAIN
I will flag this up, when it's released, but there's news that Richard North's paper on EU defence integration will be published soon. And this is not before time. EU Referendum blog has been tracking how the development of new military technolgies and doctrines is putting the UK in a position, where one day we will have lost all ability for independent military operations and planning. While it has become almost a cliche to say that Britain sort of stands between the US and Europe, in this instance the Government has pretty clearly made the decision to throw our lot in with the EU. North shows, how the changes in military operations, coupled with the industrial policy of EU-over-US procurement, will mean that in the near future it will become impossible for British forces to fight alongside US forces. So, whatever happens diplomatically, we can only fight together with EU forces, and increasingly only with the permission of other EU governments. The possible consequences of this could be catastrophic for the future of our country. To be clear, this process of EU defence integration, as it is now, will determine Britain's future. Full credit to North and the CPS for taking this issue up and providing a proper study. Perhaps this will wake up the otherwise sleepy UK media to pay some attention to this development, which they have so far ignored (stories on Kate Moss are sooooo much more important, or more lurid tales on how Bush bungled teh Katrina-response, hardly a vital issue for Britain's national interest and future, etc.). Undoubtedly this is caused by a pretty ramshakle defence reporting, in itself an oddity, given the British public's large appetite for military-related stuff. The papers, at least the serious ones, really need to get their act together on this.
I will flag this up, when it's released, but there's news that Richard North's paper on EU defence integration will be published soon. And this is not before time. EU Referendum blog has been tracking how the development of new military technolgies and doctrines is putting the UK in a position, where one day we will have lost all ability for independent military operations and planning. While it has become almost a cliche to say that Britain sort of stands between the US and Europe, in this instance the Government has pretty clearly made the decision to throw our lot in with the EU. North shows, how the changes in military operations, coupled with the industrial policy of EU-over-US procurement, will mean that in the near future it will become impossible for British forces to fight alongside US forces. So, whatever happens diplomatically, we can only fight together with EU forces, and increasingly only with the permission of other EU governments. The possible consequences of this could be catastrophic for the future of our country. To be clear, this process of EU defence integration, as it is now, will determine Britain's future. Full credit to North and the CPS for taking this issue up and providing a proper study. Perhaps this will wake up the otherwise sleepy UK media to pay some attention to this development, which they have so far ignored (stories on Kate Moss are sooooo much more important, or more lurid tales on how Bush bungled teh Katrina-response, hardly a vital issue for Britain's national interest and future, etc.). Undoubtedly this is caused by a pretty ramshakle defence reporting, in itself an oddity, given the British public's large appetite for military-related stuff. The papers, at least the serious ones, really need to get their act together on this.
Labels: defence, EU, nation, USA
Thursday, September 01, 2005
BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: GERMAN LEFT TURN TO HYSTERIA AND PARANOIA IN ELECTION
Obviously being desperate in an election campaign require desperate measures. So it's time to open the German left's favourite bogeyman, America.
First up, the hopeless Left-Party's Oskar Lafontaine has found an intolerable infringement of German sovereignty:
Obviously being desperate in an election campaign require desperate measures. So it's time to open the German left's favourite bogeyman, America.
First up, the hopeless Left-Party's Oskar Lafontaine has found an intolerable infringement of German sovereignty:
Addressing the congress of the party, an alliance of Social Democratic dissidents and neo-Communists, in Berlin on Saturday, Mr Lafontaine said: "We are not a sovereign country; as long as the US can operate from here, we are a participant in the Iraq war."
Being a participant in the Iraq war or not is not really the defining characteristic of being a sovereign country but I'll let that slide as unfortunate rhetoric. So Germany is not sovereign because of US troops on its soil? Nevermind European integration, the Euro, the ICC, . . . It's obvious this is just Yank-bashing, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the US forces in any way have any influence over German policy. Quite obviously not when you come to think of it.
Of course Schroeder's governing SPD doesn't want to be left out of this, so for the SPD parliamentary vice-chairman Michael Mueller the opposition's expert on finance, Paul Kirchoff, is the German representative of the US "neoconservatives". Apparently Kirchoff has a secret agenda to turn Germany into a "different republic" (a very loaded term in Germany), allied as he is with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who of course are responsible for the Iraq war. So there you have it. A finance expert with no public position on Iraq is given the German Left's standard "neocon!"-smear and associated with the Iraq war. (hat tip No Blood for Sauerkraut-Paul)
This obsession with Iraq continues of course with the governing Greens. On a poster which is hanging up all over Berlin, the party asks voters to "Yes! New Energy instead of oil and nuclear". It is illustrated with a picture of a desert, and you can see the shadow of three soldiers on the desert floor.
Of course Schroeder's governing SPD doesn't want to be left out of this, so for the SPD parliamentary vice-chairman Michael Mueller the opposition's expert on finance, Paul Kirchoff, is the German representative of the US "neoconservatives". Apparently Kirchoff has a secret agenda to turn Germany into a "different republic" (a very loaded term in Germany), allied as he is with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who of course are responsible for the Iraq war. So there you have it. A finance expert with no public position on Iraq is given the German Left's standard "neocon!"-smear and associated with the Iraq war. (hat tip No Blood for Sauerkraut-Paul)
This obsession with Iraq continues of course with the governing Greens. On a poster which is hanging up all over Berlin, the party asks voters to "Yes! New Energy instead of oil and nuclear". It is illustrated with a picture of a desert, and you can see the shadow of three soldiers on the desert floor.
What has that to do with renewable energies? Well, Iraq of course. Those soldiers are of course Yank-imperialist-stormtroopers out to steal other peoples' oil! Everything is about Iraq! It is all America's fault!
Dear oh dear. They really must be running short on ideas for the future let alone actual achievements in government if this anti-American posturing is all that they can put up. (see John Rosenthal as well.)
Iraq! Iraq! Iraq!, but hang on, they can do empty ad hominem attacks too of course, as Schroeder's wife now demonstrates:
Dear oh dear. They really must be running short on ideas for the future let alone actual achievements in government if this anti-American posturing is all that they can put up. (see John Rosenthal as well.)
Iraq! Iraq! Iraq!, but hang on, they can do empty ad hominem attacks too of course, as Schroeder's wife now demonstrates:
The life of Angela Merkel "is not such that she can represent the experiences of the majority of women," Doris Schröder-Köpf told Die Zeit. "They are busy trying to juggle a family and a career, or deciding whether to spend a few years at home after having a baby or wondering how best to bring up their children. This is not Angela Merkel's world," she said.
. . .
A woman without children could not claim to be a supporter of women's rights, she said.
Why not?! So women are only allowed to go into politics if they have had children? That's a pretty bizarre new form of sexism if I may say so. Also quite tall of Schroeder-Kopf to go on as if she had to make any of those difficult decisions she alludes to. It's not too difficult to juggle work and children if you're well off as she is and can afford nannies and all that stuff. So in fact the Chancellor's wife's credibility in this form is equally zero. This kind of smearing is doubly unacceptable because:
Mrs Merkel, 51, has deliberately avoided dwelling on her status as a woman in politics in the election campaign
It will truly be a joy when the Schroeders get in the removal van. I fear however that the German Left's anti-American hysterics and Iraq obsession will be with us rather longer.
Labels: EU, Germany, global affairs, USA
Monday, August 15, 2005
BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: SCHROEDER AT IT AGAIN
Last time round Schroeder only won the election narrowly because his team could capitalise on anti-American and pacifist sentiments in the German electorate. As I recollected recently the only way he could win now would be a US invasion of Iran. So, I remember when I read of Bush's insistence that no options, including military ones, were off the table in dealing with Iran, I briefly and mischievously though, Bush must want the red-greens to stay in power. Unsurprisingly though Schroeder has grasped at the opportunity:
Last time round Schroeder only won the election narrowly because his team could capitalise on anti-American and pacifist sentiments in the German electorate. As I recollected recently the only way he could win now would be a US invasion of Iran. So, I remember when I read of Bush's insistence that no options, including military ones, were off the table in dealing with Iran, I briefly and mischievously though, Bush must want the red-greens to stay in power. Unsurprisingly though Schroeder has grasped at the opportunity:
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder on Saturday vehemently rejected the use of military coercion to contain Iran and its alleged uranium enrichment activities.
"Let's leave military options aside, we have already seen that they don't amount to anything," Schröder said during an electoral meeting in the northern city of Hanover.
And the opposition is decidedly and rightly unimpressed:
"Schröder is acting completely irresponsibly for electoral purposes. He's acting as though the problem were in Washington, rather than Tehran even through he knows that isn't so," Wolfgang Schäuble, senior foreign policy expert of the opposition Christian Democrats (CDU) told the daily Die Welt.
. . .
"The chancellor is creating the fatal impression in Tehran that the world community is not united anymore," Schäuble said. "In doing so, he is accepting the consequence that the danger of an Iranian bomb will grow," he said.
Quite so. Given that this crisis is on the front pages at the moment, this could well give the government a boost. In many ways that would definitely be a bad thing. Unlike Iraq under Saddam, the problems with Iran, can possibly be solved diplomatically. Unfortunately, diplomacy also has to include the ability to threaten and use force. By sending mixed messages to Teheran, the regime there knows that it can play outside powers off against each other. It could thereby try to prevent any crack down on its nuclear weapons programme. It is a high risk game of course, because if it goes wrong there will inevitably be war. Schoeder's stance is thus not that of somebody who is "peace-loving" but in fact who is both dangerously opportunistic and naively pacifistic, a combination with potentially catastrophic consequences. By ruling out categorically any coercive measures against the Iranian regime, Schroeder is also obstructing debate in the international community in favour of what he sees as Germany's interests. Who is the unilateralist now then? It is high time Germany gets a new government, and by that I mean one that is lead by somebody else.
Updated (see comments)
Labels: defence, EU, Germany, Iran, USA
Thursday, August 11, 2005
BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: HOPING FOR A CHANGE IN FOREIGN POLICY
If Germany is governed by a Christian-democratic (CDU/CSU) & right-liberal (FDP) coalition from Septemebr 18th onwards, the FDP’s Wolfgang Gerhardt is poised to be the new foreign minister. In the current edition of Internationale Politik he has outlined where he thinks German foreign policy should go, and I will provide in-depth analysis in the days ahead, which will also include my endorsement.
(The Transatlantic edition doesn’t currently have the article but here’s a report in English. The German-language pdf-link is here.)
This ties in well with reports about the Christian-democrat leader Angela Merkel’s desire to reconnect with the US. It is certainly true that there are limits to where any future Kanzler could take German foreign policy so a little caution is in order, as the Economist points out, it will be rebalancing, not realigning. But it does need to be borne in mind that these Atlanticist positions that are being articulated, are not only not vote-winners, but in the circumstance that international security comes back onto the agenda, will be electoral suicide. Hence we can conclude that politicians such as Gerhardt and Merkel are definitely sincere in their ambitions to craft a foreign policy that will in effect be closer to Britain’s.
If Germany is governed by a Christian-democratic (CDU/CSU) & right-liberal (FDP) coalition from Septemebr 18th onwards, the FDP’s Wolfgang Gerhardt is poised to be the new foreign minister. In the current edition of Internationale Politik he has outlined where he thinks German foreign policy should go, and I will provide in-depth analysis in the days ahead, which will also include my endorsement.
(The Transatlantic edition doesn’t currently have the article but here’s a report in English. The German-language pdf-link is here.)
This ties in well with reports about the Christian-democrat leader Angela Merkel’s desire to reconnect with the US. It is certainly true that there are limits to where any future Kanzler could take German foreign policy so a little caution is in order, as the Economist points out, it will be rebalancing, not realigning. But it does need to be borne in mind that these Atlanticist positions that are being articulated, are not only not vote-winners, but in the circumstance that international security comes back onto the agenda, will be electoral suicide. Hence we can conclude that politicians such as Gerhardt and Merkel are definitely sincere in their ambitions to craft a foreign policy that will in effect be closer to Britain’s.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
GITMO WORSE THAN GULAG
There’s been some eyebrows raised because of a senior German diplomat’s observation on the preferability of the Gulag to Camp X-ray. And actually, he’s right. Not in regards to the prisoners, but in regards to the international image of those running the facilities. The Gulag was never used as effectively to tarnish the Soviet Union, Stalin and communism as the Gitmo detention facilities are used to slander the US. So, yes, from that perspective, Gitmo is worse. I’ve got a feeling though, that’s not how he meant it . . .
There’s been some eyebrows raised because of a senior German diplomat’s observation on the preferability of the Gulag to Camp X-ray. And actually, he’s right. Not in regards to the prisoners, but in regards to the international image of those running the facilities. The Gulag was never used as effectively to tarnish the Soviet Union, Stalin and communism as the Gitmo detention facilities are used to slander the US. So, yes, from that perspective, Gitmo is worse. I’ve got a feeling though, that’s not how he meant it . . .
Labels: Germany, history, politics, terrorism, USA
Sunday, June 19, 2005
OPTIONS FOR A CONSERVATIVE FOREIGN POLICY
This may not be the issue that most Conservatives are thinking of at the moment in terms of making themselves electable again, but it deserves the greatest attention. Charles Moore raised the key points in this respect in yesterday’s Telegraph namely that parties/politicians who don’t seem to have an idea of where to put this country in this world are unelectable, and rightly so too.
I’m not going to go into detail of what I think this should look like, partly because I’m still working on it, but I think in terms of the debate’s dynamics there are xx options on foreign policy for the Conservatives to consider:
Isolationist: This would be a rejection of all international engagement, spurning the relationship with the US, European integration, multi-lateral frameworks, alliance agreements and sceptical about maintaining and defending overseas territories. Sean Gabb is the only bigger name I can think of who fits this bill.
Unilateralist / Isolationist-Plus: Carrying with it a whiff of Empire nostalgia, this sort of approach would retain some elements of the pure isolationist view, but would in constrast be committed to maintaining bilateral support deals with smaller countries such as Belize and to defending overseas territories such as the Falklands. Peter Oborne would fit the bill, for example by opposing European integration, the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, while favouring intervention in Zimbabwe.
America-First: This strand of Tory foreign policy thinking is the one that is currently most widespread in the debate. This approach sees our close relationship to the US as the most important foreign policy goal, and tends to subordinate other issues such as European intregration to maintaining this.
Semi-“neocons”: I definitely used to be one of these, right up from my childhood, but I had a bit of a rethink in late 2000/early 2001 (a story for another day). This is the kind of approach that fuses together the promotion of democracy and human rights with military force and confident Western hegemony. This is strongly interventionist. The signatories of the UK Scoop Jackson fan club would certainly meet the criteria.
Transatlantic bridge: In some respects this would be Blairite world politics in blue. This approach would be a rhetorically hardened and overall more cautious version of Tony Blair’s foreign policy of international engagement.
EUrofederast / Anti-American: I remain to be convinced that this approach, of turning the Tories into dedicated Euroderalists and anti-Americans would work either inside the party or with the potential centre-right electorate the Tories need to win back. The British swing voters may be anti-Bush, but they his intentions to stand as a future Tory leader the most relevant.
(There are a number of options I don’t deal with as they are incompatibly with being a Tory; Pacifism would be an example of that.)
This may not be the issue that most Conservatives are thinking of at the moment in terms of making themselves electable again, but it deserves the greatest attention. Charles Moore raised the key points in this respect in yesterday’s Telegraph namely that parties/politicians who don’t seem to have an idea of where to put this country in this world are unelectable, and rightly so too.
I’m not going to go into detail of what I think this should look like, partly because I’m still working on it, but I think in terms of the debate’s dynamics there are xx options on foreign policy for the Conservatives to consider:
Isolationist: This would be a rejection of all international engagement, spurning the relationship with the US, European integration, multi-lateral frameworks, alliance agreements and sceptical about maintaining and defending overseas territories. Sean Gabb is the only bigger name I can think of who fits this bill.
Unilateralist / Isolationist-Plus: Carrying with it a whiff of Empire nostalgia, this sort of approach would retain some elements of the pure isolationist view, but would in constrast be committed to maintaining bilateral support deals with smaller countries such as Belize and to defending overseas territories such as the Falklands. Peter Oborne would fit the bill, for example by opposing European integration, the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, while favouring intervention in Zimbabwe.
America-First: This strand of Tory foreign policy thinking is the one that is currently most widespread in the debate. This approach sees our close relationship to the US as the most important foreign policy goal, and tends to subordinate other issues such as European intregration to maintaining this.
Semi-“neocons”: I definitely used to be one of these, right up from my childhood, but I had a bit of a rethink in late 2000/early 2001 (a story for another day). This is the kind of approach that fuses together the promotion of democracy and human rights with military force and confident Western hegemony. This is strongly interventionist. The signatories of the UK Scoop Jackson fan club would certainly meet the criteria.
Transatlantic bridge: In some respects this would be Blairite world politics in blue. This approach would be a rhetorically hardened and overall more cautious version of Tony Blair’s foreign policy of international engagement.
EUrofederast / Anti-American: I remain to be convinced that this approach, of turning the Tories into dedicated Euroderalists and anti-Americans would work either inside the party or with the potential centre-right electorate the Tories need to win back. The British swing voters may be anti-Bush, but they his intentions to stand as a future Tory leader the most relevant.
(There are a number of options I don’t deal with as they are incompatibly with being a Tory; Pacifism would be an example of that.)
Labels: Conservatives, defence, EU, global affairs, USA
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
ELECTION LOG 2005: HOW THE IRAQ ISSUE SHOULD AND SHOULDN’T BE TREATED
Anyways, browsing through the Times I bumped into this piece by Martin Samuel (who he, btw?). I think it serves as a good example of what about the Iraq policy wasn’t wrong and why the “anti-war” crowd is missing some quite important points in their critiques of Blair. It is rather untypical fare for the Times, which much of it taken up with irrelevant arguments and typical anti-war fare, for example
Anyways, browsing through the Times I bumped into this piece by Martin Samuel (who he, btw?). I think it serves as a good example of what about the Iraq policy wasn’t wrong and why the “anti-war” crowd is missing some quite important points in their critiques of Blair. It is rather untypical fare for the Times, which much of it taken up with irrelevant arguments and typical anti-war fare, for example
this country is run by liars who have misguidedly allied it to bullies, thieves and vicious thugs
Most of the article falls into this type of arguing and I won’t bother stating the case against most of these points; it’s been done before too often, and if you agree with the writer you will agree even more, and if you don’t, this isn’t going to convince anybody.
However, there are some weightier points being raised, that I feel inclined to rebut. To start off with Samuel writes:
However, there are some weightier points being raised, that I feel inclined to rebut. To start off with Samuel writes:
As it stands, there is a very real danger that we will re-elect a prime minister who has overseen the most fundamental change in foreign policy since the dissolution of the Empire, without forcing a proper debate of his beliefs. Wherever one stands on the subject of the war, this is unhealthy.
Except of course that wasn’t the case at all. Britain’s decision to go into Iraq alongside the US was entirely consistent with British grand strategy in the post-1945 era. Sure there is a level of debate to be had about whether the details of the Iraq case merited action, but the decision rested within Britain’s wider strategic outlook, whether you agree with that outlook or not. As Alister Miskimmon has argued conclusively (p.298/299):
The principles underlining the use of the armed forces have not dramatically changed since Labor took power in 1997. …
The UK remains a highly engaged international actor, whose colonial past, combined with its multilateral links, give it a global reach and relative influence that few states can match. Shifts in the European security environment since the end of the Cold War, and the insecurity that characterizes the post-September 11,2001,world have challenged the UK ’s ability to adapt effectively to new foreign policy problems. In particular,the balance that the UK has sought to strike concerning Atlanticist and Europeanist visions of security policy has come under increasing strain. Due to the current upheavals in international order,the UK has not sought radical upheaval of its foreign and security policy. Despite Blair ’s efforts to shape the development of European military capabilities to reinforce transatlantic burden sharing,events have consistently forced Blair ’s foreign policy to be largely reactive in scope. Thus, Blair has not initiated substantial change in UK strategic culture,preferring to try and mainain the UK ’s current position within the transatlantic community.
On the other perhaps there’s something by this Martin Samuel fellow to consider more seriously:
But Iraq is item one, whatever your stance. If you believe the West is truly under threat and is justified in acting against rogue leaders and nations, you should express that in support for the Government.
Please don’t. Another Labour term with power transferred to Gordon Brown by 2007 at the latest, may well destroy Britain’s military infrastructure for such a strategy (see Keegan on this). If you really think this is the number one issue and you are a hawk, the Conservatives still remain the least-worst option; albeit a fairly rotten option too, all things considered.
Ok, but perhaps he is onto something here:
Ok, but perhaps he is onto something here:
At last count, on April 12, coalition troop deaths stood at 1,723, a toll rising daily, largely unreported … And if we treat our own casualties so disdainfully, what about the civilian lives lost? Is this not what we should be discussing? The rebuilding of Iraq is so chaotically managed that about £4.8 billion of Iraqi oil funds under coalition management are missing.
So, the argument is that it is being run badly? Well, I couldn’t agree more with that.
I also think there ought to be some debate about holding the relevant people to account for several mistakes, including
-the failure to plan for the fact that Saddam Hussein’s netwar-forces (the Fedayeen Saddam, for example), would continue fighting after the collapse of Iraq’s regular forces,
-the apparent ignorance of the fact that in a country governed by a police state there was going to be a good degree of chaos when that police state was in its entirety –and wholly rightfully- dismantled overnight,
-the massive intelligence failure on wmd-programmes, but not Iraq’s. I’m thinking about the failures in regards to Lybia, Iran, North Korea and the nuke smuggling ring in Pakistan. But no one seems to care about that. Intelligence on Iraq’s wmd was ambiguous and this ambiguity was confirmed by post-invasion searches, but intel on these other points was catastrophically inept. These are the real failings we ought to have a look at, because the seeds to future problems can be found in them, not in the wrongful political use of intelligence by Blair, which simply confirm that Blair is not always entirely straight with the facts, hardly something novel only revealed in regards to Iraq.
I also think there ought to be some debate about holding the relevant people to account for several mistakes, including
-the failure to plan for the fact that Saddam Hussein’s netwar-forces (the Fedayeen Saddam, for example), would continue fighting after the collapse of Iraq’s regular forces,
-the apparent ignorance of the fact that in a country governed by a police state there was going to be a good degree of chaos when that police state was in its entirety –and wholly rightfully- dismantled overnight,
-the massive intelligence failure on wmd-programmes, but not Iraq’s. I’m thinking about the failures in regards to Lybia, Iran, North Korea and the nuke smuggling ring in Pakistan. But no one seems to care about that. Intelligence on Iraq’s wmd was ambiguous and this ambiguity was confirmed by post-invasion searches, but intel on these other points was catastrophically inept. These are the real failings we ought to have a look at, because the seeds to future problems can be found in them, not in the wrongful political use of intelligence by Blair, which simply confirm that Blair is not always entirely straight with the facts, hardly something novel only revealed in regards to Iraq.
More points could be added, but those are the issue that a real look at the Iraq question should be addressing, but all opposition parties are skirting to issue either by silence or silly talk about how we ought to outsource decisions on these matters to the UN security council.
It is quite possible that in the UK these issues have been kept under wraps by hawks who didn’t want these issues interfering with the 2004 US election, just as right now in the US the questions are being relegated to a later stage to avoid embarrassment for Tony Blair in his bid for re-election.
However, that is what they must remain: delayed. After May 5th, whoever wins, there has got to be some serious questioning about the failures of British (and US) Iraq policies.
Labels: defence, EU, global affairs, Iraq, politics, USA
Thursday, March 17, 2005
DEFENCE COMMITTEE MISSES REAL POINT?
Military facing 'capability gaps'
The UK's armed forces could be facing "gaps in capability" because defence equipment is being withdrawn before new technology is ready, MPs warn.
Equipment is being phased out over the next two to three years but new, more capable, kit will not be operational until after 2010, they said.
They sounded far more huffy in the radio report I heard this morning, all about not spending enough on the proper capabilities for the vast ranbge of missions and all that But the MPs are missing the point, of why more should be spent on the armed forces's capabilities, right? Well, my cuties, perhaps I can recommend some reading to you, namely
Delivering Security in a Changing World. Defence White Paper
In it you will find the following statement (p.7):
Delivering Security in a Changing World. Defence White Paper
In it you will find the following statement (p.7):
But we will not need to generate large-scale capabilities across the same spectrum, given that in the most demanding operations we will be operating alongside the US and other allies, where capabilities such as air defence and naval escorts are less likely to be at a premium.
What this means is, that there is no capability gap. As the UK is in the views of this Government not required to be able to carry out proper wars without US or EU support there is no problem.
There are political points to this the MPs have ignored. Underlying this behaviour is the belief -or rather wishful thinking- that come an emergency our allies will be there and ready to fill in our gaps. What if they don’t want to? (see my short comment at the report’s publication).
This will then create a situation where we will be, by a technical fait accompli, forced into the Blairite vision of an “interdependent” world and his Euro-American bridge thingy. It could of course mean that the UK has to choose between the US and the EU, or international engagement and isolation. Either way the political arguments about this are being ignored here right now.
If you disagree with this course of events, now might be the time to say so, because in a couple of years time military technology will have made the choice for us.
There are political points to this the MPs have ignored. Underlying this behaviour is the belief -or rather wishful thinking- that come an emergency our allies will be there and ready to fill in our gaps. What if they don’t want to? (see my short comment at the report’s publication).
This will then create a situation where we will be, by a technical fait accompli, forced into the Blairite vision of an “interdependent” world and his Euro-American bridge thingy. It could of course mean that the UK has to choose between the US and the EU, or international engagement and isolation. Either way the political arguments about this are being ignored here right now.
If you disagree with this course of events, now might be the time to say so, because in a couple of years time military technology will have made the choice for us.
Labels: defence, EU, global affairs, USA
Saturday, February 12, 2005
HOMEWORK TIME FOR ROBIN COOK ON DARFUR AND THE ICC
Robin Cook is exasperated: he dearly longs for the International Criminal Court to take up investigations into crimes against humanity in Darfur, and is angered by the US’s hostile attitude to the court, which apparently the only problem preventing the ICC’s glorious justice and peace decending upon Darfur.
Hmm, should have done his homework methinks:
Robin Cook is exasperated: he dearly longs for the International Criminal Court to take up investigations into crimes against humanity in Darfur, and is angered by the US’s hostile attitude to the court, which apparently the only problem preventing the ICC’s glorious justice and peace decending upon Darfur.
Hmm, should have done his homework methinks:
The Rome Statute, which created the ICC, gives it the authority to handle genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. But the court can only consider these crimes if it also has jurisdiction over the accused. The Rome Statute requires that those persons be either nationals of a state party to the treaty or people acting there. Sudan hasn't ratified the statute, so the ICC could only hear cases from Darfur that involve non-Sudanese nationals from states recognizing the court - hardly the bulk, one suspects, of the perpetrators.
Yet the UN panel ignored this requirement
The author also rightly criticises the US government’s decision to label events in Darfur as genocide and then do nothing about them.
There are several points missing so far: how is the ICC’s ruling going to be enforced? You know, when domestic courts make a decision they send out the police, so when an international court makes a decision it sends out the . . . international police? Except of course there isn’t one. So short of a US-led military intervention, what options are there really for dealing with the problem? As far as I can see there is only one: withdrawal of uncondtional diplomatic support and the imposition of economic sanctions on Sudan by China. Is that going to happen? Doesn’t look like it, but either way, that has nothing to do with the ICC and US attitudes to transnational institutions, and it makes Cook look a bit like an uberpartisan hack trying to suggest otherwise. If anybody in the West can really be faulted here it is the EU’s desire to export huge amounts of high-tech weaponry to China, and thus not exactly penalise China for supporting the murderous rampage in Darfur.
PS: And am I the only one who thinks Robin Cook’s language is inappropriate for a proper politician:
Under the Conservatives, Britain had been a backmarker in negotiations to set up such a court. After the change of regime
Or election as changes of Government are normally referred to in this country. Surely Robin Cook has been better known for opposing regime change, if memory serves correctly.
And then there’s this debasement of language:
And then there’s this debasement of language:
For the past four years, the Bush administration has pursued a relentless pogromagainst the court.
Pogrom? You mean lynchings, beatings, burning down of homes and hundreds of dead? And a relentless one at that! Sounds like almost like another Holocaust. Evil Bush. Actaully I have to admit, I hadn’t noticed on the news that out of control mobs were aussaulting the staff and buildings of the ICC. But perhaps Cook has access to some sort of secret information on the issue, so I don’t want to be too judgemental.
Labels: China, global affairs, Sudan, USA
