Last week Alex mentioned that Global Dashboard is a “hotbed of David Kilcullen fandom”. Bravo! I’m a fan too, and I’ve been reading Kilcullen’s The Accidental Guerrilla over the last couple of weeks.

In the book Kilcullen writes at length about counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also looks at guerrilla warfare in East Timor, Pakistan and southern Thailand (the long-running Malay separatist struggle). Another interesting section deals with Islamic radicalization in Europe. “Europe has no remote ‘safe havens’ outside state control”, Kilcullen writes. “But it does have ‘micro-havens’ – urban undergrounds, alienated ethnic groups, and slums where the writ of government does not always run”.

Kilcullen argues that Europeans should take a counter-subversion approach to Islamic radicalization (rather than counter-terrorism). The authorities should work with vulnerable communities to “rebuild community cohesion and authority structures”, so as to marginalize and drive out radical elements. Attacking radical networks would be a secondary and defensive measure “designed to create a breathing space in which the construction of friendly, trusted networks can proceed”.

I believe that an added benefit of this strategy is that it creates situations for governments to tap the knowledge that migrants have of their homelands – knowledge of society, culture, languages, politics, the economy, business and so on. Such information could, for example, greatly benefit intelligence agencies (who study and interpret developments in other regions), military units deploying to foreign countries, and corporations and trade delegations pursing business deals overseas.

Kilcullen rightly says that we should see Europe’s Muslim communities as a target of terrorist-sponsored subversion, not as a source of threat to European society. But let’s take that a step further and consider the opportunities that strong and integrated Muslim communities (and other migrant groups) might offer society.

Full marks to the NYT for deadpan delivery:

ROME — Ever since the Italian media began peering into Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s personal life — and found a host of attractive young women — his supporters have been furiously trying to change the subject.

Among them is a small group with a big plan: to nominate Mr. Berlusconi for the Nobel Peace Prize. “An Italian hasn’t won the Nobel Peace Prize since 1907,” said Giammario Battaglia, a 36-year-old lawyer who helped start the initiative a few months ago. “We think it’s a good moment.”

He appears to be serious.

Silvio per il Nobel!

OK, Barack Obama may have given the best speech of his presidency to date in Cairo.  And fine, maybe it creates a new opening with the entire Muslim world.  But did nobody tell Barack and Hillary how a real President dresses for Egypt?  Remember ’07?

Amid the torrent of reaction and commentary on Obama’s Cairo speech, this excerpt from Al Jazeera‘s coverage will doubtless elicit a few double-takes:

Ahmad Yousuf, a senior Hamas official, told Al Jazeera that Obama’s speech reminded him of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream speech”.

Mild surprise has been heard in various quarters that the next G20 summit – scheduled for 24-25 September - is to be held in Pittsburgh, rather than in New York (more logical, given that the G20 will take place right in the middle of the first week of the UN General Assembly) or Washington DC. Take for example this transcript of a press conference by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibb last week:

MR. GIBBS:  One quick announcement before we get started.  The United States will host the next G20 summit, September 24th through the 25th, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Q    Where?

Q    What?

Here’s the answer to the ‘Why Pittsburgh?’ question, taken from a White House statement quoted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Pittsburgh has demonstrated a commitment to employing new and green technology to further economic recovery and development.

Yarone Zober, the Pittsburgh Mayor’s chief of staff, echoes the point in the same article:

Pittsburgh has really been a model for an economic turnaround,” he said, noting the smokestacks-to-knowledge transformation of the regional economy and the development of environmentally friendly “green” job sectors.

More on Pittsburgh’s turnaround in this Huffington Post piece.

As I noted back in April, the London Summit was a respectable outcome, but fell disappointingly short on the green new deal front. But with this backdrop, and an agenda that for now still remains wide open, maybe – maybe – the September summit will do better.

Edwin Dyer

Back in February, I gave a talk on security in West Africa at a Demos leadership masterclass on International Security and Counter-Terrorism.  Yesterday came news that Al Qaeda’s African arm had killed a British hostage, Edwin Dyer, whom they captured in Niger in January (they killed him in neighbouring Mali). In my talk, I predicted that the security threat from West Africa might be more of a long-term problem for Europe, but that it was one that was worth monitoring in the short-term too. It seems the threat might be more immediate than I feared. The talk is available here.

It’s summer and that means cocktails!  I’ve been searching  for a tipple that reflects the cosmopolitan character of Global Dashboard (excluding, of course, the Cosmopolitan) and think we may have to plump for the World Traveler (sic) a new concotion from The Intoxocologist.  I’m assuming that this isn’t a tribute to British Airways economy class seating, but instead a summation of international cooperation in a glass, mixing vodka, sake an, er, “Navan” (it’s from Madagascar):

Flavors from around the globe come together dramatically for the World Traveler. Deep spice mingles together with just the ideal hint of vanilla. A splash of sparkling sake takes beautiful to exquisite in a way champagne could not. Zipang Sparkling Sake maintains perfect balance with its light rice sweetness.

Actually, that could be vile. Let us know!

1 ounce Cielo Reposado Tequila
1 ounce Van Gogh Pomegranate Vodka
1/4 ounce NAVAN
1/2 ounce Fresh Lemon Juice
1/4 ounce Agave Nectar
1-1/2 ounce Zipang Sparkling Sake
Lemon Twist Garnish

Combine all ingredients (except sake and garnish) in a cocktail shaker with ice. Shake for fifteen seconds. Strain into a martini glass. Top off with Zipang Sparkling Sake. Garnish with lemon twist.

Here in Britain, the fallout from recent revelations about MPs’ expenses continues. Meanwhile, it seems that World Bank officials have been up to similar tricks. Admittedly we cynics may scoff at their lack of imagination – after all, they haven’t been buying birdhouses or maintaining their moats with public funds. But Peter Bosshard at International Rivers, reviewing a book by former Bank staffer Steve Berkman, highlights some dubious claims all the same (hat tip: Bretton Woods Project). Berkman’s book:

reports how Nigerian officials charged $2,200 for 18 cups of tea and snacks at a roadside stall under a World Bank loan (and got away with it). A project office with eight staff in the same country charged a switchboard for 60 telephones, 48 air conditioners, 14 shredders and 12 refrigerators to the operating expenses of another Bank project – all at prices well above the going market rates. They also claimed expenses for television and video sets at 249,999 Naira apiece – more than ten times the equipment’s street value, but just one Naira less than the amount which triggers stricter controls.

Few will be surprised to hear about World Bank money disappearing – Berkman quotes an internal report which found that ‘stealing from Bank funds is the rule, not the exception’. But all the same (and perhaps I’m being naïve), one would have thought that World Bank employees would have enough problems with the endemic low-level fraud that their organisation is known for, without contributing to it themselves. Of course, unlike British parliamentarians, World Bank officials aren’t politicians and being insulated by their institution, will never have to face the wrath of the public.

Oh dear, what has Robert D Kaplan been smoking? Here he is writing about Kim Jong-il, North Korea’s recent aggressive actions and the strategic situation in North Asia…

“And so Kim lives in dread of the Chinese slowly, methodically undermining his regime in a way that will lead to him being replaced—in a palace coup, perhaps—without the implosion of the North Korean state.

His only hope is to draw America into direct talks, with Washington implicitly recognizing his regime, so that he can leverage Washington against Beijing. Nuclear tests and missile launches are his own warped way of trying to get the attention of the new Obama Administration. He needs to be enough of a problem that Washington will have no choice but to deal with him directly, rather than merely as one party among several in the multilateral talks that have characterized negotiations with North Korea since 2003.”

Two issues here.

Firstly, how the hell does Kaplan know what Kim thinks? Reclusive tyrant, secretive society – enough said.

Secondly, the notion that Kim’s trying to snuggle up to the Americans by threatening war seems contrived. Another explanation that’s been bandied about, that Kim’s acting tough as part of a plan to ensure the succession of youngest son Kim Jong Un, also sounds fanciful. With both explanations, it’s hard to see the connection between (a) diplomatic manoeuvre / internal succession issue and (b) firing test missiles, detonating a nuclear device and threatening war.

Here’s a simpler interpretation of North Korea’s actions. Kim and his generals live in a militarized, tightly controlled and isolated society. They’re conditioned to see the outside world through a thick ideological lens. This includes the belief that all foreign powers are implacably hostile to the regime’s interests. Displays of aggression, to scare off enemies, are standard reactions when North Korea feels threatened.

In this case, just what the threats are – real or perceived – is anyone’s guess.

British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband has responded to Alex’s post questioning the wisdom of drone attacks in Pakistan. Citing David Kilcullen, Alex’s argument was that drones killed too many civilians, contradicting basic counterinsurgency doctrine, which is, above all, to secure and serve the population.

Miliband (cautiously) agrees:

The threat to US and Pakistani (and UK) interests is real, the danger and damage of civilian casualties serious, and the range of options limited.

US technology is vitally important, but Pakistan is fighting its own struggle against violent extremism. The drone attacks have undoubtedly hurt the core of AQ, but I see the dangers. The first best solution is obviously to build up Pakistan’s capacity, but first best solutions are not always immediately available.

Miliband’s is right, I think, but there are, unfortunately, much deeper and darker questions to address. As I argued in August last year, Pakistan’s “struggle against violent extremism” has been mounted very much at the America’s behest – and its urgings have been wrong-headed at best, disastrous at worst.

Last summer, the Pakistani Prime Minister was given “an earful” by the White House and told to sort the border regions out. All well and good, except that the United States was pushing the Pakistan military towards a conventional encounter with the militants, something that it’s own manual on counter-insurgency advises strongly against.

The pattern was similaar in 2004, when General Musharraf was persuaded to attack the tribal areas. That led to fury among tribesman, forcing them into the arms of the Taliban. It also led to humiliation for the army, with one poor Colonel taking shelter in a mosque and then emerging to beg for mercy with the Koran on his head. Tribesmen stripped him of his uniform and sent him on his way.

Now, in 2009, we have a massive attack on the Swat valley, which has killed some militants – sure – but has led to the forceful displacement of 2.5 million people, “an exodus that is beyond biblical,” according to the Independent. In the long run, will this campaign contribute to Pakistan’s security? Time will tell, but I suspect not.

I am not, in way, pleading for tolerance for extremism. But I am demanding that we – the Americans in particular – start to stand account for the counterproductive nature of their Pakistan policy since 9/11.

Throughout its time in office, the Bush administration seemed intent on showing it could push a functioning state to the brink of failure. Pakistan’s complicity in arming and supporting the Taliban was ignored by the Bush administration. Instead, it pursued its short term goals in the war on terror with little care for the long term impact on a nuclear armed state with a young, fast-growing, and deeply frustrated population.

In his time in office, Bush hosed billions on the Pakistan army, but dedicated only around 1% of total aid to non-military purposes. America’s political strategy has been non-existent. Its influencing strategy even weaker. It really beggars belief that so much money could be spent only to achieve the reverse of the desired result.

Now, the Obama administration wants to engage in nation building, but it continues to focus efforts on the country’s most unstable zones, rather than supporting a comprehensive, nationwide response from the government. It is also arriving with its cheque book open, only to find that neither it nor the Pakistan government has much idea as to how or where the money should be spent.

Above all, it’s unclear whether – unlike in Iraq at the beginning of the surge, where there was a doctrinal revolution – the protagonists have truly accepted just how badly they have got things wrong. The US counterinsurgency manual describes insurgencies as ‘learning competitions’. If so, I fear that the best that we – the West – and the various arms of the Pakistan state can hope is some kind of consolation prize for taking part. (more…)

From a recent speech by General Sir Mike Jackson:

It takes more than soldiers to win wars. DFID’s aims are to relieve poverty, unqualified from geography and wider aims. But its aims are split from the Foreign Office. If the Foreign Office wants A, DFID will do B. This won’t do. The world is too important a place. This independence of action is a luxury to many. DFID, for example, spends more money than anywhere else on India – an emerging economy. I don’t understand the logic.

And just in case you thought the Defence guys had got away with it…

The Ministry of Defence is not agile enough. There are too many people in the MoD with the ability to say ‘No’ without the responsibility on that issue. Too many people who see process as the main purpose of the MoD.

And as for the Treasury…

European security policy doesn’t exactly inspire big new ideas every day. So hats off to James Rogers, who has a very big idea indeed: the EU has been worrying about land forces too much, and needs to turn to naval strategy instead. Like Robert Kaplan, Rogers thinks that the Indian Ocean will be central to twenty-first century geopolitics:

All the major powers are now expanding their influence along the Eurasian coastal zone, a region rich in energy, raw materials and fertile land. Within this space, China, India, Russia and the United States have begun to reorient their foreign and security policies. Unfortunately, the EU’s main trade route – until now threatened only by pirates – ploughs through this littoral space and connects Europeans to the energy supplies of the Middle East and the manufacturing centres of China, South Korea and Japan. It carries a quarter of global maritime commerce, making it the most important trade line on Earth.

The region stretching from the Suez Canal to the city of Shanghai – and perhaps as far as Seoul – is therefore particularly critical to Europeans. But the same space is important to others too. With a rapidly growing navy, China has put together a “string of pearls” – naval stations, harbours and land-based infrastructure – to extend its maritime reach into the Indian Ocean, East Africa and the Middle East. Russia also has plans to build new naval stations around the Mediterranean and the Middle East, potentially in Syria and Yemen.

India has been busily kitting out its fleet with new aircraft carriers, submarines and stealth destroyers, which it claims are needed to complete its “manifest destiny” to control the Indian Ocean. And the United States has undertaken a “global posture review” since 2004, where it has repositioned many of its naval assets, away from Europe, and towards East Asia.

And what is the EU doing about this? Not much, other than its anti-piracy patrols off Somalia. Rogers thinks that’s the Union’s “most important” operation yet. I think he may be a bit over-excited (we let the pirates go free). But his long-term vision is compelling:

First, the EU needs to rethink certain parts of its foreign and security policy, and concentrate more on the affairs of the Eurasian coastal zone. Europeans need to build up strong partnerships with countries in key geopolitical nodes – like India, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore – in order to keep the peace in the region most likely to experience competition and disorder in the years ahead. This will allow the EU to prevent conflict and insecurity from threatening key European interests throughout the area.

Second, the EU should take part and lead more naval operations along its principal maritime trade route, particularly in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. The EU mission to quash piracy in the Gulf of Aden is just the beginning, and Europeans must step up their visibility throughout all the maritime approaches to European home waters. Increasingly, port calls, anti-piracy missions and surveillance and presence operations will all be required to uphold the peace.

Third, a European strategic defence review is needed to allow for the construction of common warship classes, which should replace the costly and inefficient mishmash of vessels currently operated by European fleets. An integrated EU coastguard should be put together to free up naval vessels in the Baltic and Mediterranean for use elsewhere. And ultimately, standing EU naval forces equipped with aircraft carriers and amphibious platforms for power projection into troublesome areas should also be developed and built.

It’s sound strategy, even if doesn’t feel that likely politically. But we will hear more of this Jolly Rogers.

Rumours have long been floating around that the Abu Ghraib photos that Barack Obama has been battling to keep secret are much more graphic than anything yet published. A week ago the Telegraph dived into the fray to confirm the story:

Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse… At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube. Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

Shocking stuff and all the more credible because their source, Major General Anthony Taguba, conducted the original investigation of Abu Ghraib and has since played a key role in continuing to describe “a systematic regime of torture” authorised directly by George Bush. Taguba believes that there is “no doubt” that the Bush adminstration was guilty of war crimes.

The Telegraph, however, had Obama in its sights, not Bush. He’d promised to release the photos, then relented when lobbied by the military. He’d then lied about their content: “I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.” Rape? Sodomy? Not particularly sensational! It was quite a scoop.

The Obama adminstration was unamused, trying to divert attention by attacking the British meda, with an Obama spokesman describing the British press as the last place you’d look for “something that bordered on truthful news.”

The Telegraph was apoplectic, publishing three furious responses. Nile Gardiner: “‘juvenile,” an “absolute disgrace.” Toby Harnden: “a smokescreen,”  ”as arrogant as anything the Bush administration ever said about the press.” James Delingpole: “stop pooping on our lawn.”

One problem. It turns out the Taguba had been misquoted. He was referring to other photos that he’d seen – and which have already been published in 2006 – by Salon. Scott Horton, who had also been promoting the story, issued this apology:

The 44 photos subject to the ACLU lawsuit and reviewed by President Obama do not contain sexually explicit images. I regret my errors.

And the Telegraph? Well, so far it’s just kept digging. Indeed, it reported Taguba’s clear denial as confirming its story, while claiming Scott Horton’s reporting also backed them up. Apologies, as James Delingpole would no doubt put it, are clearly for “pantywaists”.

Expect more “robus”‘ reporting from the Telegraph in the future, now it’s cemented in its role as the scourge of the political class, and as it acts to correct the failings of America’s “congenitally libtard Mainstream Media.” According to Delingpole:

We don’t respect politicians any more. Not our politicians, and not yours either. Imagine how this new strain of irreverence bordering on utter contempt is going to affect our reporting of political affairs.

It’s going to be a fun ride…

Who said Britain was in decline?  Here’s the NYT.

The Obama administration is working with their French counterparts to make sure that Britain’s Queen Elizabeth — reportedly miffed, according to the British Press, at not being invited to the D-Day anniversary festivities in Normandy this weekend — gets a formal invitation.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said on Monday that President Obama thinks the queen should be present at the event on Saturday. “We are working with those involved to see if we can make that happen,” Mr. Gibbs said.

Mr. Gibbs’s comments came after Buckingham Palace pointedly noted last week that the queen didn’t get an invite, an omission which has had the British press fuming. Mr. Obama is attending the event (French President Nicolas Sarkozy invited him two months ago) as is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Mr. Sarkozy has said that the queen is welcome to come to the ceremony, but Obama administration officials say that they would like to see her receive a formal invitation.

Driving home that point, Mr. Gibbs joked at the end of his daily briefing with reporters Monday: “Will you — will you — will you please pass that directly to the queen for me?”

Dambisa Moyo is rapidly becoming the bête noire of orthodox development circles. Her recent book, Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa has stirred up a good deal of controversy, arguing that that ‘overreliance on aid has trapped developing nations in a vicious circle of aid dependency, corruption, market distortion, and further poverty, leaving them with nothing but the “need” for more aid.’ (Incidentally, you would not believe how long it look me to realise that ‘Dead Aid’ is a play on Live Aid.)

In typically sceptical fashion, Emmanuel Yujuico at IPE Zone points out that ‘you also have to consider that several books have followed the same formula of catchy title plus scepticism about aid. Others have said it earlier–and better.’ He’s right, and people like James Ferguson have been writing on this for a number of years, but it’s worth noting that none of those authors (to my knowledge, at least) were black. As has been noted by Niall Ferguson, who wrote the foreword to Dead Aid, it is pleasing to see a ‘popular’ book on development that has been written by an African woman, rather than an American male. That said, as Global Dashboard’s own Jules Evans points out, Moyo hasn’t lived in Africa for years. Moreover, her career has followed the path of the archetypal high-flying western development worker – Oxford, Harvard, Goldman Sachs and the World Bank.

Back in February, Global Dashboard asked where the Dead Aid argument leaves traditional developmentists: ‘will they all dig in for a defensive game, or is a serious process of strategic renewal finally in prospect?’ Since then, promotional opinion pieces and interviews for Moyo’s book have led to a spate of debates (surely that is the correct collective noun?) within the development blogosphere and wider media that may be able to shed some light on this question. (more…)