by Charlie Edwards | Aug 20, 2008 | Conflict and security, UK
Today The Guardian (among others) publishes an excerpt from an operational note by the Security Service’s Behavioural Science Unit; a small team of scientists and psychologists based at Thames House. The note takes apart many of the common stereotypes about those involved in British terrorism.
They are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices. Nor, the analysis says, are they “mad and bad”. Those over 30 are just as likely to have a wife and children as to be loners with no ties, the research shows. Around half were born in the UK, with others migrating here later in life. Some of these fled traumatic experiences and oppressive regimes and claimed UK asylum, but more came to Britain to study or for family or economic reasons and became radicalised many years after arriving. Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes.
by Richard Gowan | Aug 20, 2008 | Africa, Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, Europe and Central Asia
In early August, Daniel wrote a punchy post entitled “After state-building”. Looking at American debate about what to do in Afghanistan and Iraq, he concluded “we may be about to witness a paradigmatic shift away from state-building. But what replaces it?” I’d come to a parallel conclusion for the UN: “the idea of large-scale, multi-dimensional UN missions overseeing countries stumbling out of conflict may have run out of road.” But I didn’t have an answer about what comes next.
And I still don’t. But I’ve outlined some initial thoughts in a piece over on the Guardian website, timed to pre-empt the arrival of the UN’s new peacekeeping boss – Alain Le Roy – next Monday. I run through the current list of short-term UN woes (where are the helicopters?), but then turn to “longer-term, strategic challenges”:
These aren’t about management. They involve adapting to a less American, more multipolar world. The current scale of UN peacekeeping is a product of the last, all-too-American decade. The Bush administration favoured hefty UN missions to stabilise places where it did not want to get bogged down itself: Haiti, Liberia, Darfur.
UN officials, shaken by their impotence over Iraq, have often felt obliged to look “relevant” elsewhere. The result has been a trend towards bigger peace operations with ever-more ambitious, perhaps unrealistic, mandates to rebuild these shattered states. In private, many of the organisation’s experts worry that they cannot fulfil these mandates – almost all would prefer less expansive alternatives with realistic targets.
But the greatest obstacle to effective peace operations is that tensions between the US and its rivals can reduce the UN to paralysis. China has ensured that the UN mission in Darfur cannot push back much (if at all) against pressure from the Sudanese government. Throughout 2008, Russia has stymied efforts to transfer UN peacekeeping responsibilities to the EU in Kosovo. UN observers in Georgia evacuated as Russian troops advanced this month.
If great power tensions increase further, the chances for more UN missions can only decrease. That would be tragic for the vulnerable who rely on the UN from, Port-au-Prince to Kinshasa. It might be dangerous for the great powers too. Without the UN to provide basic security, the odds of small flare-ups escalating into big crises will grow.
So as Alain Le Roy looks beyond his first round of crises, he may decide that his overarching strategic task is to build up a minimal consensus between the US, its allies and its rivals about what UN peacekeeping is for in an age of tensions between them.
Minimal consensus, eh? What might that look like? Stand by for answers sooner or, more probably, later. But I have started to spot quite a few symptoms of a “new minimalism” around the UN of late. These include its first ever peacekeeping doctrine, which is sharp and thoughtful document but feels conservative relative to earlier UN statements on peacebuilding and statebuilding (there’s textual analysis in my recent International Peacekeeping article, if you like that sort of thing).
It’s also worth checking out the state of debate on the Responsibility to Protect – Ban Ki-moon’s staff have been rather skillfully guiding discussions, emphasizing “soft” aspects of R2P like conflict prevention over “hard” military interventions. It’s worth having a close read of this really good report on the subject from the International Peace Institute. Now, a couple of policy documents do not equal a new ideology, but I think we’re seeing the first signs of a deeper minimalist trend…
by Richard Gowan | Aug 20, 2008 | Influence and networks, Off topic
It’s a cliché that our networked, wired world suffers from a dearth of true leaders – visionaries who know how to use new technologies to build virtual communities on a truly global scale. Leaders, in short, who can say this:
In my travels round the world I have always been surprised that no matter where I go people recognize and know me, from Europe, Australia and India to the Philippines and the Zulu Nation in South Africa. This got me thinking… I realized that while two people from two entirely different countries and backgrounds may seem to have nothing in common, the only thing they might have in common is me… So I decided to start a network where people from across the world might come together and get a conversation started over me. Where it will lead, I don’t know but the world would be a better place if everyone talked a little more to each other…
Yes, the man who helped bring down the Berlin Wall is back in the planetary political game. Welcome to Hoff Space.
by Daniel Korski | Aug 20, 2008 | UK
Over on the Guardian website, Nick Brown, a senior Labour leader, is supporting Russia’s invasion of Georgia to make a partisan political attack against David Cameron. You have to read it to believe it.
No doubt there is cause to criticize Georgia – I certainly have. But at a time when civilians are dying, Russia has invaded a neighbouring country (refusing to honour a ceasefire agreement) and David Cameron stole a march on both Gordon Brown and David Miliband, the Labour Whip’s article is, frankly, pathetic.
RICHARD ADDS: it may be even lower than Daniel reckons. Check out Andrew Sparrow’s theory that this is all a coded attack on David Miliband.
by Daniel Korski | Aug 20, 2008 | UK
You know when you have bought something you weren’t sure you needed, but you were tempted beyond control? And anyway, the thing it was meant to replace – familiar but also past-its-prime- really did need to be replaced. In with the new out with old.
But once you take the new thing home the doubts begin to set in. Did the thing really fit? Perhaps it was just the light in the changing room. Every day, little by little, the doubts grow. They grow until they are all-consuming. And you start thinking, extraordinarily, that maybe the old thing wasn’t half bad – even though it definitely was.
A lot of ordinary Londoners who voted Boris Johnson into office, thus ending Ken Livingstone’s Castroesque reign, must be feeling a bit similar now that the London Mayor has lost his second deputy. In spite of the fears of his colleagues and hopes of his enemies, Mayor Johnson has not been a disaster, racist or particularly buffoonish. In fact, he’s been perfectly sensible, occasionally innovative if a little hapless. The extra police officers on the Tube are making a difference while the alcohol ban was smart.
But, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to loose one deputy mayor may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness. As he hobnobs with Team GB in Beijing, Boris Johnson would do well to emulate that other replacement, Gordon Brown, and prepare for an Autumn re-launch of his own. He needs to get a top-notch Chief of Staff; someone who is brilliant, but low-profile and able to work with politicians and officials alike. As part of his reversal, he needs advice on how to reform City Hall including any legislative changes needed. Perhaps LSE’s Tony Travers could be asked to do a review.
The mayor then needs to focus on a few key issues. His administration feels a bit like the national government – many small initiatives but no over-arching narrative. It feels like the Brown government in other ways too – the top man wants to run everything himself and seems to find delegation to subordinates difficult. But leadership is about giving strategic direction and delegation.
Unlike the man in No. 10, Boris Johnson is likeable, is riding a Conservative upswing in the polls and has all the ingredients for a successful remake. But it will take serious re-thinking if he is to prevent voters from regretting their choice.
