Airstrip One

Feet to the Fire

Don't be fooled by the idea that Spain's vote to withdraw from the American coalition was pointless because of the new bombs that have been found. Now the reasoning is coming in:

Also Monday, the conservative newspaper ABC said that just hours before the terrorists killed themselves in Leganes, it received a fax from the same group that had claimed blame for the March 11 bombings. This time, it warned it would turn Spain "into an inferno" unless the country halted its support for the United States and withdrew its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, ABC said.

Or "the Americans and Brits may offer you anything to get you back into the coalition, but we've still got plenty of capability".

The Spaniards, like the Brits, have endured domestic terrorism in order to maintain the democratic and territorial integrity of their own countries - but they are unwilling to risk terrorism merely for their leaders' egos. The difference is the Spanish were asked.

Is this the Shia kick off?

With the uprising of the followers of Moqtada al-Sadr, and his threatened arrest perhaps we are now seeing the much feared Shiite uprising?

This matters for Britain because our troops are almost all in overwhelmingly Shiite areas. The Shiites have been quiet while the (American occupied) Sunni areas have not, which makes us look such better occupiers than those vulgar Yanks. Of course we've been telling the world that this is because we are such better occupiers than the Americans. Why we wear berets rather than helmets out on patrol!

So this "uprising" is important. Will it translate into general Shiite nastiness or will it fizzle out? On the one hand the Sadrites are an energetic minority amongst the Shia, having the support of neither Iran nor the indigenous Shia hierachy - who have their own, probably larger, Shia factions.

However even a minority Shia uprising would be a bad thing for us. Similarly this uprising may force the hand of the more moderate factions who have to suddenly show a more millitant side to keep their hotheads on board. As Fatah found against Hamas, fighting occupiers adds a certain glamour and even power, even when it is plainly in your people's interests to stay at the negotiating table.

And now the Yanks don't want to cut and run because Iraq isn't ready for democratic self rule. It never was and it never will be, that's what the Hashemites and Saddam were for!

Power comes out of the payload of a bomb

If George Monbiot's article in the Guardian provides no other productive contribution to foreign policy, this pithy phrase succinctly describes the current view of power. It is rare that an author persuades me of any advantages that the Labour government may provide, but Monbiot is that man. His perception of power is a curious one: that we should disarm, whilst all about are keeping theirs. Whilst his argument that state development of weapons leads to their deployment by terrorists is superficially correct, his conclusion is that we should disarm although it is unlikely that other states will respect or follow his pacifistic vision for the United Kingdom.

The paradox of modern warfare works like this: by enhancing our military strength, we enhance our opponents' capacity to destroy us.

In reality, the clarity of modern warfare views offence and defence as incestuously entwined with science. With the classic poise of left-wing progressivism, Monbiot places more importance on the UK's need to comply with its obligations under international law rather than the primary purpose of elected politicians: to maintain the security of those who elected them.

Monbiot demonstrates that the Labour government has no wish to comply with the Non-Proliferation treaty and has changed its strategic stance to allow the pre-emptive use of nukes:

To this sin of omission we must add three of commission. The first is the UK's support for the US nuclear missile defence programme, which could scarcely be better calculated to provoke a new arms race....

The second is that the government has laid out £2bn to equip the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston with the means to design and build a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons. In this respect, as in all others, we appear to be keeping the US company.

The third is that our policy on the deployment of nuclear weapons has changed. In March 2002, for the first time in British history, the government suggested that we might use them before they are used against us. Since then, Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, has repeated the threat several times, on each occasion further reducing the threshold. Put items two and three together and the UK begins to look like a pretty dangerous state.

For once, despite the distasteful attachment to the United States, the Labour government has taken the right steps in attempting to maintain and renew our nuclear deterrent whilst preparing more flexible strategies for the wider range of security threats that we face.

(23.01, 4th April 2004)

Official: Tories obtain sympathetic media

The European elections, to be held in June, are the next opportunity for the British electorate to tender its verdict on the record of the government. The Tory party has decided to raise the issue of the proposed European Constitution to see if this will mobilise voters or provide them with an additional tranche of support. It has formed a centrepiece of their Welsh conference this week. Jonathan Evans, Tory leader in the European Parliament, gave a strong comparison between Blair's dissembling and the welcome of the continentals:

“Our principled opposition stands in stark contrast to the inept approach of this Labour government. Be in no doubt, this constitution represents a fundamental change in the relationship between our country and the European Union.

“The German government has called it ’worthy of the word historic’. The French government has called it ’the setting up of a new political age’.

The Spanish government, ’a legal revolution without precedent’. The Belgian government, ’the capstone of a federal state’.

“And the Labour government says ’it’s just a tidying up exercise’.”

As the Guardian's recent press survey showed, there is almost no support for a parliamentary vote on the Constitution in the media. The Tories are making the running on this issue and the Liberal Democrats have been muzzled by their pro-Europeanism.

(22.31, 4th April 2004)

Two Cultures

An article by Martin Wollacott in the Guardian explores a new series of articles published by Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF). In short, these articles examine how the humanitarian and political agendas have been conflated, to the detriment of both cultures. Non governmental organisations, seduced by a say in foreign policy, have succumbed to political stances at the expense of their original missions. Foreign policy has been recast with an ethical and humanitarian gloss to legitimate political decisions without undertaking the difficult task of explaining why such actions are necessary to the electorates of the West.

By reasserting the distinction between the humanitarian idea proper and the humanitarian motives or pretensions of political leaders, the MSF writers are able to move the arguments back to where they ought to be taking place. In essence, they are saying that there are two quite different sets of arguments. One is about foreign policy, and this should take place in the knowledge that even worthy foreign policy is not in the first place humanitarian.

The other is about the humanitarian mission, and the emphasis must be on the need for humanitarian organisations to distance themselves from governments and limit, as far as they can, their role as instruments of policy.

This has allowed MSF to disentangle humanitarian needs from political demands. They do not recognise that a "humanitarian crisis" exists in Iraq and they are on record for doubting that the United Nations has the capabilities to govern occupied Mesopotamia.

At the same time, reports emanating from Darfur in western Sudan show that Arab militias are now involved in an ethnic cleansing of the black tribes that inhabit the area, pushing refugees across the border into Chad. The episode is beginning to resemble the early stages of Africa's particular brand of genocide, using militias and terror.

Some 1,000 people are dying each week in Sudan, and 110,000 refugees, like Mr. Yodi, have poured into Chad. Worse off are the 600,000 refugees within Sudan, who face hunger and disease after being driven away from their villages by the Arab militias.

"They come with camels, with guns, and they ask for the men," Mr. Yodi said. "Then they kill the men and rape the women and steal everything." One of their objectives, he added, "is to wipe out blacks."

The United Nations has observers on the ground who warned that this was the "worst humanitarian crisis in the world". The apathy from the United Nations General Assembly. The European Union wrung its hands, talked to the Sudanese government and asked it politely to stop the atrocities.

Another day, another genocide.

(22.52, 2nd April 2004)