by Alex Evans | Jan 19, 2008 | Conflict and security, Influence and networks, UK
You’d think that Shami Chakrabarti and David Omand would disagree on quite a lot. But they don’t. Here at the Fabian Society conference, Shami actually begins her talk by recommending that we all read David’s published papers. Later, David comes up with four suggestions for a model political response to terrorism, with Shami nodding next to him:
1) First do no harm
2) Be capable of showing – through actions as well as words – that the narrative of Islamists is flawed
3) Be positive about what we believe in
4) Tackle the question of identity, and invest in building strong senses of identity at the local level
What David, Shami and Sadiq Khan really all emphasise above all is that the key battle in counter-terrorism is all about narrative, influence, and who gets to frame the debate in people’s minds.
In the discussion, I observe that fourth generation warfare and counter-insurgency theorists have learned a lot about influence since 2002 – and that while one of the principal lessons they’ve internalised is that you never, ever want to end up perceived as Goliath against your opponent’s David, that seems to be the trap that we’re continually blundering into in the domestic context.
David Omand has already underlined that the real risk from terrorism is to societies, rather than individuals. If he’s right (as I think he is), then we need to ask ourselves – in the context of increasing detention without charge to 28 or 42 days, for instance – whether our theory of security is at odds with our theory of influence. Home Office minister Tony McNulty says he agrees with me: “it’s all about the politics”, he says. Hard to square that with the policy he’s responsible for.
by Alex Evans | Jan 19, 2008 | Conflict and security, UK
So now we’re in a breakout group on how democracies should fight terrorism. Quite a panel they’ve assembled: Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty, David Omand who used to be Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator at the Cabinet Office, author of The Islamist Ed Hussein, Sadiq Khan MP and Home Office minister Tony McNulty.
And there’s a fight! Shami Chakrabarti and Ed Hussein, whom we all assumed would make nice, are kicking the crap out of each other! Ed Hussein throws the first punch by saying that he feels Shami is patronising him – and that she’s a “liberal do-gooder”. Shami not happy about this. She starts by taking the moral high ground, talking about respect and open debate. But then she relents – and tells Ed that “it’ll be a long time before I start taking lessons in democracy from someone whose acquaintance with it is so recent”. And as one, we all go “oooOOOooo”…
by Alex Evans | Jan 19, 2008 | Influence and networks, UK
My take on Miliband’s speech: very nicely crafted, charmingly delivered, good structure to it, but raises more questions than answers. Effecting a synthesis between the statist and libertarian wings of the left, as Miliband calls for, would be quite a feat – but the speech doesn’t propose how that would be done. Similarly, we’re left none the wiser at the end as to what Miliband proposes to do on tough issues like nuclear proliferation or climate change, other than that we’ll need a range of multilateral institutions to deal with them and equity considerations will be important. Well, yes…
But this is where Miliband’s so engaging. Boffin that he is, you can just tell that he’s thinking all this stuff through from first principles, probably referring to Kant, Habermas, Thomas Aquinas and Thucyidides on the way; and that though he may not have figured the answers out yet, they just might be in the post.
Not sure I’m convinced by this ‘civilian surge’ malarkey, though. The underlying idea, yes. The strapline, hmm.
by Alex Evans | Jan 19, 2008 | Influence and networks, UK
So here we are at the Fabians’ foreign policy conference, and we’ve just heard from Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Here, brutally distilled, is the gist of his speech:
– Globalisation and growing interdependence imply shifts in the balance of power “from west to east, from national to international, and between governments and people”. On one hand there’s a ‘civilian surge’: empowered individuals who blog, who campaign, who protest stolen elections in Kenyan slums. But on the other hand, there’s the reality of growing insecurity at all levels from local to global.
– No political ideology has yet found the language or substance to address all this. The right is conflicted between its desires for order, and for economic freedom. The left has a different problem: it wants a just distribution of resources, effected by the state, but also favours a ‘radical liberalism, a pluralism that exists outside of the state. The trick the left must pull off is to synthesise the two.
– These questions are a big deal internationally. Suppression of individual rights by states is a big issue in the ‘civilian surge’. And we have to ask big questions about distribution of goods and entitlements: e.g. who gets access to nuke technology, how to build a fair global climate regime.
– And they raise profound questions of governance – where there are four themes. 1) ‘Faltering states’, where the international community has a responsibility to intervene – not only militarily, but also through soft power and influence. 2) States that are too strong – e.g. Burma, Pakistan, Kenya. Here too, the international community must defend universal values – which are real, and popular. 3) Regional institutions like the EU have a crucial role in projecting their values beyond their borders. 4) Global institutions, where we need a Fukuyama-esque ‘multi-multilateralism’.
– Britain’s role in all this: a ‘hub’ in the global network (rather than a ‘bridge’ between US and EU).
by Alex Evans | Jan 19, 2008 | North America, Off topic
Matt Yglesias finds Barack Obama charming voters in Nevada:
“Because I’m like, an ordinary person, I thought that they meant what’s your biggest weakness?” Mr. Obama said. “So I said, ‘Well, I don’t handle paper that well. You know, my desk is a mess. I need somebody to help me file and stuff all the time.’ So the other two they say uh, they say well my biggest weakness is ‘I’m just too passionate about helping poor people. I am just too impatient to bring about change in America.”
As the room erupts in laughter, he continues: “If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. I could have said, ‘Well you know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don’t want to be helped. It’s terrible.’”
It brings to mind the old favourite about a hapless British Ambassador to Washington many years ago:
The British Ambassador was in Washington some years back. About a fortnight before Christmas he was rung up by the local T.V. Station. “Ambassador,” said the caller, “What would you like for Christmas?” “I shouldn’t dream of accepting anything.” “Seriously, we would like to know and don’t be stuffy. You have after all been very kind to us during the year.” “Oh well, if you absolutely must, I would like a small box of crystallised fruits.”
He thought no more about it until Christmas Eve when he switched on the T.V. “We have had a little Christmas survey all of our own,” said the announcer. “We asked three visiting Ambassadors what they would like for Christmas. The French Ambassador said: ‘Peace on earth, a great interest in human literature and understanding, and an end to war and strife.’ Then we asked the German Ambassador and he said: ‘A great upsurge in international trade, ensuring growth and prosperity, particularly in the underdeveloped countries. That is what I wish for Christmas.’ And then we asked the British Ambassador and he said he would like a small box of crystallised fruits.”
