by Charlie Edwards | Jun 12, 2008 | Conflict and security, UK
It’s not just the DUP who helped secure vote for the Counter-terrorism bill. From Revolts:
Of the 49 Labour backbenchers who voted against the Government in November 2005, when they went down to defeat on the Terrorism Bill, only 29 did so today. Perhaps even more strikingly, of the 48 backbenchers who the whips had identified as noes – in a list leaked to a Sunday paper back in April, just 25 voted against the government. And note this: of the 39 backbenchers who the whips had down as wavering then, just seven voted against the government. The main story will be the DUP what won it — but the extent to which the government dampened down troubles on their own benches is extraordinary. Champagne corks a-plenty tonight in the whips office – and the Home Office – we suspect.
According to Red Box the latest intelligence is:
Fact (will happen)
- Compensation: The Home Secretary is developing a compensation scheme, possibly £3,000 a day – Mohammed Sarwar
- Britain will not oppose sanctions to Cuba at EU foreign ministers meeting – Colin Burgen and Ian Gibson
- Flattering phone calls from Gordon – Labour MPs Austin Mitchell, Harry Cohen
Rumour (may happen)
- £225 million from water rates can stay in Northern Ireland, rather than be siphoned off by the Treasury – All 9 DUP votes
- Seat on the Intelligence and Security committee – All 9 DUP votes
- Private Members Bill for Plural Plaque – Michael Clapham
Fiction (wrong)
- Compensation scheme for miners’ knees – Yorkshire MPs in former mining seats
- Offer of knighthood for “Sir” Keith Vaz
- Calls to make the measures subject to judicial review – Some Labour MPs
by Alex Evans | Jun 12, 2008 | Global system, Influence and networks
If you pick up this week’s Economist and leaf through the classified ads, you’ll find this one: a job advert for the position of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. But just a second… surely the UN’s jobs website is here – rather than here, as linked to in the advert?
Ah, those cheeky scoundrels at Avaaz. The New York Times picks up the story:
The online advertisement that appeared Monday on The Economist magazine’s Web site seemed straightforward enough, seeking candidates for the position of United Nations high commissioner for human rights.
The advertisement, however, was a fake, a protest paid for by Avaaz.org, an online advocacy group. The organization is among a number of human rights organizations, United Nations diplomats and other watchdog groups critical of what they call the lack of transparency in selecting the next commissioner, one of the highest-profile and most delicate jobs in the United Nations hierarchy.
“It is a general problem that top appointments in the United Nations system are often made in back rooms behind closed doors where candidates who meet the lowest common denominator win,” said Ricken Patel, a Canadian who is the executive director of Avaaz.org. “A more open process requires bad candidates to face the test of public scrutiny.” The advertisement, which cost about $10,000, also ran in this week’s print edition of the magazine and carried a disclaimer identifying it as having been written and paid for by the group.
The UN isn’t happy:
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – The United Nations rejected on Tuesday as “absurd” and “offensive” allegations that it was being secretive in selecting a successor to its outspoken human rights chief, Louise Arbour.
by David Steven | Jun 12, 2008 | Global system, South Asia
Last week, I gave a talk at the Defence Academy on the new public diplomacy, focusing in particular on its implications for Afghanistan.
The full text is after the jump or read it as a pdf.
(more…)
by Daniel Korski | Jun 12, 2008 | Conflict and security
Reading Alex’s argument about the hollowing-out of governmental authority, I am reminded of Richard Norton’s term a “feral city”, something he defines as a metropolis with over a million people in a state whose government has lost the ability to maintain the rule of law within the city’s boundaries yet remains a functioning actor in the greater international system.
In a feral city social services are all but nonexistent, and the vast majority of the city’s occupants have no access to even the most basic health or security assistance. There is no social safety net. Human security is for the most part a matter of individual initiative.
Yet a feral city does not descend into complete, random chaos. Some elements, be they criminals, armed resistance groups, clans, tribes, or neighborhood associations, exert various degrees of control over portions of the city. Intercity, city-state, and even international commercial transactions occur, but corruption, avarice, and violence are their hallmarks.
Read more here in the Naval War College Review.
Crucial to the term, I think, is the assumption that “ferality” can visit any city, even if for only for a few hours. Look at Copenhagen, a model of tranquility, wrecked by riots in 2006 and 2007.
by Alex Evans | Jun 12, 2008 | Conflict and security, Influence and networks
Things keep going from bad to worse in Naples, where the piles of uncollected rubbish are still heaped up. Last week, the head of a waste disposal firm turned ‘super-witness’ – who was due to testify about links between corrupt politicians and the Camorra, Naples’ mafia – was gunned down in the street. According to John Hooper in the Guardian:
The Carabinieri, the military police, said yesterday the killing was impossible to reconstruct because no one would admit to having seen it. However, after a search for bullets and casings, they concluded that at least 18 shots were fired from two 9mm-calibre automatics. Orsi was hit twice in the chest and once in the head, suggesting that, in classic mafia style, he was given a “coup de grace” by one of the killers as he lay dying.
Why the Camorra’s interest in trash? Because they’re big players in the sector, Hooper explains – not least in illegally dumping toxic waste which they truck down from the north of Italy. That’s also why the people in and around Naples are opposed to the government’s plan to build incinerators to get rid of the rubbish backlog; they figure that the Camorra would take them over within about ten minutes, and use them to burn the toxic stuff too.
Meanwhile, Mexico‘s also sliding. Last month, the country’s acting chief of police was gunned down. According to the Economist:
One of his bodyguards, who was also wounded, managed to wrestle the police chief’s assailant to the ground and arrest him. Mr Millán was conscious for long enough to ask his killer who was behind the hit, but died before he could get a reply. The answer to his question, provided later by investigators, helps cast some light on why it is so hard to end drug-related violence in Mexico. They say that his assassin was sent by José Antonio Montes Garfias, another federal police officer.
The week leading up to May 13 saw 113 murders in Mexico, including 17 in just one day – and estimates of total deaths due to organised crime range from 1,100 to 2,500 people this year. 2,700 federal troops have now been deployed. As the Economist concludes, “the war on drugs has never seemed less like a metaphor”. And here’s the real catch: “success in disrupting drug cartels only leads to more violence as gang members fight to fill power vacuums and continue to supply the ever-lucrative drug market”. (See also John Robb’s recent write-up.)
In Naples and Ciudad Juarez alike, organised crime’s basic stance towards the state is the same as you’d find with Hezbollah in Lebanon, MEND in Nigeria or the Taliban in Afghanistan. The aim is not to cause the collapse of ‘official’ governance. Rather, it’s to keep the state ‘hollowed out’: so short of capacity and legitimacy that insurgents or organised crime can step into the gap, and then not only operate freely, but also start building up legitimacy powerbases of their own (c.f. another example of the Camorra in action).
