Monday’s* Map: A String of Chinese Pearls Charlie Edwards

From The Economist:

“China’s port strategy is mainly motivated by commercial impulses. It is natural that a country of its clout has a global shipping and ports industry. But it could become a flashpoint for diplomatic tensions. That is the pessimistic view. The optimistic one is that the more it invests, the more incentive China has to rub along better with its trading partners.”

*I am a day late…

Is Britain the organised crime capital of Europe? Charlie Edwards

Last summer Philip Stephens, the FT’s chief political commentator,  wrote the following

The High Court is witnessing an expensive legal battle between Oleg Deripaska and Michael Cherney. The two made fortunes in the wild west privatisation scramble after the fall of the Soviet Union. We have heard lurid tales of organised crime and extortion. Mr Cherney says Mr Deripaska owes him hundreds of millions of dollars. An estimated 60 per cent-plus of the case load of the High Court’s commercial division now comes from Russia and eastern Europe.

His point, and one made by many others in Westminster and Whitehall, is that ‘the capital is a constant reminder of how unequally the bounty of globalisation has been shared’. As London became the financial hub of the world so too did the city attract those from the shadows of globalisation. And boy, did they come… by the Home Office’s reckoning there are 38,000 individuals (across 6,000 groups) involved in organised crime that impacts on the UK.

With that in mind 2013 is the year the Government must act. The Home Secretary gets this. Home Officials talk about a new found determination to tackle organised crime. There are plenty of reasons why. Following the sucess of the Olympics, there is a quiet confidence among officials that while terroism remains a real and present  danger, assurance levels have never been higher. It means the Home Office can address a portfolio of risks – rather than focus solely on a single threat to the UK.

The following is from a piece I wrote for the RUSI website:

EUROPOL, a European Union Agency run by a Briton and heavily reliant on British intelligence, has published its annual Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA). The assessment highlights the scale of the threat from organised crime to individuals, communities and businesses across Europe. Of particular concern to EUROPOL are ‘facilitated illegal immigration, trafficking in human beings, synthetic drugs and poly-drug trafficking, Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud, the production and distribution of counterfeited goods, cybercrime and money laundering.’ These crimes, in EUROPOL’s view, require concerted action by EU member states – not least by the British Government.

You can read the rest of the article here

Generation Change Charlie Edwards

Over on his Middle East Blog , Marc Lynch asks whether the Iraq war will change how scholars study the Middle East. It’s a question he has been pondering for sometime since taking over as director of the Middle East Studies program at the Elliott School of International Affairs:

Graduate programs in political science and Middle East Studies have already begun to see a steady flow of applicants back from Iraq (including, among many others, my research assistant from last year). I expect that over the next decade, this will turn into a flood as smart, young veterans look to put their experiences into a broader perspective and to apply their hard-won granular knowledge to broader academic and policy problems.  (And not only military veterans — there are plenty of civilians, contractors, and NGO workers who have worked in Iraq as well.) Most will pursue MA degrees, while some percentage will decide to continue on to a PhD I think this an unequivocally good thing — and I wonder if people have given serious thought to how it might change the field of Middle East studies.

It’s a fascinating question and one that we in London should be thinking about -  identifying the young up-and-coming MA/PhD students and helping them find their way into think tanks, NGOs and government service.

It reminds me of a story I have been told by numerous military folk about a  young lance corporal on his Junior Command Course in Brecon. The story goes that a senior NCO was giving a lecture on counterinsurgency and spent much of his time describing the campaigns in Malaya, Oman and Northern Ireland. During the Q&A session the young lance corporal put his hand up and asked the senior NCO a question about Afghanistan and Iraq. The senior NCO couldn’t answer the question – his only experience, he said, was  in Northern Ireland, so he asked the assembled group who had had experience in Afghanistan and Iraq – almost everyone raised their hands… soon the senior NCO was listening to tactics learnt in the fields of Helmand and from the streets of Basra.

(more…)

Global Leaders on Facebook Charlie Edwards

Spotted in The Atlantic h/t Ryan G.

And others are joining in too… see RFE’s This Week on Facebook

Female force keeps Diyala secure in Iraq Charlie Edwards

The Monday Map Charlie Edwards

How to dismantle a nuclear bomb Charlie Edwards

Some knowledge of physics is, apparently, essential… more here

Britain’s place in the world? Drifting… obviously Charlie Edwards

Yesterday William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, gave a speech in London setting out what British foreign policy might look like under a Conservative government. Judging by the crowd at IISS , the pre-briefing before the speech, and bearing in mind the drought of Tory ideas on national security to date, this was an important moment for the Conservative Party – this was a blueprint.

So you might have expected the speech to ruffle a few feathers, go further than David Cameron’s Liberal conservatism speech in Islamabad, even set out a new vision or concept that might spark further debate and yet… it wasn’t to be. The speech provoked no more than a whimper from the papers: The FT highlighted the opposition plans to downgrade EU ties , The Guardian asked whether the Tories have a real foreign policy? Reuters felt the Conservatives were arguing for a less interventionist Britain while The Daily Telegraph led with news that the Conservatives wouldn’t shrink from tough defence decisions. Finally, the Chief Foreign Commentator of The Times felt the speech ‘strikes a realistic tone on Britain’s place in the world ‘ and awarded the shadow foreign secretary 6/10 and a silver star.

Using Global Dashboard’s in-house foreign policy speech check-list everything was here:
Call for a National Security Council Check
Quote David Kilcullen Check
Describe the world as uncertain Check
Reference state failure, terrorism, changing nature of conflict (in that order) Check
Describe effects of climate change on failing states Check
Argue that the EU should be enlarged to include the Balkans and Turkey but leave out how the UK would influence a larger European Union Check
Call for reform of international institutions Check

In his conclusion William Hague said:

My argument today has been that it will become more difficult over time for Britain to exert on world affairs the influence which we are used to… to do so will be to act not only in our national interest but in the enlightened national interest…  for we have a responsibility to others as well as ourselves. Britain will not disengage from trying to shape global events. In trying to create and maintain a more peaceful world we will always be at the forefront. But we will so position and prepare ourselves that if the skies darken and new storms arise we will be ready for them.

Tony Blair said something similar when he was PM, Gordon Brown too. Paddy Ashdown and George Robertson argued along similar lines recently. In other words, British foreign policy looks like it will head on precisely the same course as the previous decade, which for internationalists and interventionists is no bad thing.

Yet the issue at the heart of Hague’s speech was the lack of drive or ambition – the idea, implicit in his speech, that nations can only ever respond to events – never instigate change.

Finally there was one curious passage that stood out and which I think was the most interesting part of the Shadow Foreign Secretary speech. Tucked away was the following:

The citizens of Britain have always been restless in trying to improve the wider world and global in our outlook.

That is a pretty bold statement. But I wonder how true it is, especially when polling indicates the public appetite for adventures overseas isn’t that strong and there are signs that the downturn is beginning to undermine previously strong public support for aid. It also contrasts with something that Tony Blair argued three years ago, when he argued that:

The British people are reluctant global citizens. We must make them confident ones.

Which is it – are we Brits restless in trying to improve the wider world or reluctant global citizens? Was it that the British public had had enough of Blair’s role on the international stage or that Blair wanted the UK to become a truly global hub – for business – innovation -  influence on the world stage but never succeeded.  Judging by this speech today William Hague has decided that Britain’s best approach is to drift – after all it will be in our national interest…

Polls apart Charlie Edwards

Interesting. 55 per cent of Chatham House members (and, one assumes, visitors to the website) believe the conflict in Afghanistan will become ‘another Vietnam’.

Great Expectations Charlie Edwards

Andrew Mitchell, Shadow International Development Secretary on BBC News earlier :

We will have a national security council under a Conservative government which will ensure all these different departments and all these different activities are wired in closely together.

Sure – it’s the wiring that’s the issue.

International Alert DG Dan Smith ‘connecting the dots’ Charlie Edwards

Afghanistan: What the leaders think Charlie Edwards

184 service personnel have died in Afghanistan since 2001. The tragic deaths of eight men who died last week in a single 24-hour period has brought the conflict home. Newspapers are abuzz with consternation and criticism. Newspapers have been awash with editorials setting out their respective views and ideas of what the UK and wider coalition should do. Below are the highlights.

Background:

The UK Af-Pak Strategy is here.

The US Af-Pak Strategy is here . (pdf)

ISAF ‘Missions and Mandate’ is here . (more…)

The green shoots of reform? Charlie Edwards

Following on from Alex’s post on DFID’s new white paper , the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has announced that it will be kicking off a root and branch review of Britain’s defence policy. The whizzo idea is to publish an interim Green Paper early in 2010.

Since November 2007 think tanks have been arguing for a review of defence policy. The latest think tank to join the bandwagon – IPPR – has, it seems, finally tipped the balance. But before everyone congratulates themselves on this first tentative step – bear in mind that the power now rests with the MoD.

With the announcement of a green paper they can now start to ask searching questions of those individuals and organisations who have been calling for a defence review. To aid them in this task the MoD should, at the very least, hold seminars with each of the think tanks that have focused on this issue – to date: Chatham House , Demos , IPPR (Global Change Team) and RUSI .Perhaps even do a roadshow across the UK?

At the moment the terms of the debate aren’t clear – nor is the fundamental question a green paper would seek to answer – perhaps a good starting place might be: What is defence for in the twenty first century?

As will become increasingly apparent there are no straightforward answers to this question – not least because this is really a debate about Britain’s place in the world… and that’s a different story.

Two trade scenarios from the UK Government’s horizon scanning centre Charlie Edwards

Former CIA officer – WTF? Charlie Edwards