Monday, July 25, 2005

Why Iraq matters

Last week, I read a couple of chapters of a book by Gilles Kepel called "The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West."
It's a long way from being perfect for sure, but the concept implied by the title intrigued me. It re-poses a question that has not been given careful enough consideration, despite vast amount that's been written about it: what do Al-Qaeda want, and why are they and their sympathisers terrorising the world?
Too often, Al-Qaeda have been branded "nihilists" by politicians and journalists in the UK, US and elsewhere. The reason appears to be to underline the point that 'there is no negotiating with these people.' This is true, but it doesn't tell us much. Just because Al-Qaeda has no concrete demands for those it terrorises (as we were used to with, say, the IRA), doesn't mean that it inflicts horrendous death and destruction just for the sake of it. And no one can seriously believe that Al-Qaeda reckon that a few scattered acts of terror will deliver the global fundamentalist Islamic revolutions they wish for.
So - assuming Islamic states wherever possible and eventually the world over is Al-Qaeda's basic aim - what is their strategy? They are trying to inspire as many Muslims as possible to be "radicalised" and take up the cause. It is indeed a war for Muslim minds. In this sense, it is not at all a war against "The West" or "our values" or "our way of life" or "democracy" or because "they hate our freedoms." Rather, it is an attempt to inspire Muslims to join Al-Qaeda's cause.
How to defeat Al-Qaeda then? ("Defeating terrorism" is ludicrous enough to simply be ignored. Terrorism is a tactic that quite simply will never disappear, given the resources and technology available to the worlds' discontents.) We need to do all in our power to ensure that radicals like Al-Qaeda do not gain the upper hand in the war for Muslim minds. And invading Afghanistan and Iraq, reflexively supporting Israel's occupation of the West Bank (currently being extended under the guise of the "Gaza disengagement plan"), supporting the Saudi government, undermining Iran's democratic opposition - in short, all of UK/US policy towards the Middle East and other Muslim countries, gives Al-Qaeda the advantage. The single most important element of winning any "war against terror" must be ensuring that the terrorists do not gain a support base that will give them the opportunity to operate (such as they have on the Afghan-Pakistani border). And the policy being pursued by Britain, the USA and most other "Western" countries runs directly counter to this fundamental imperative.
The terror, then, will continue for some considerable time to come, unless we wake up to what our governments are doing, and force them to change. That is what it means to live in a functional democracy.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Terror

Another good day not to be in London yesterday. Now the police shoot at terrorist suspects to kill (aiming for the head, not body, in case theyre carrying a bomb)
Random searches of tube passengers are on the increase too. In the US, there are concerns over civil liberties implications of such a policy (via Stellito) but hey, when you don't have a constitution, it isn't such a big deal...
It would appear Al-Qaeda affiliates are responsible for a bomb that has killed more than 80 people in Sharm El Sheik in Egypt.
Meanwhile, an advert in the FT and an email from Oxfam appealing for donations to help famine-relief in West Africa brought the current crisis to my attention.
The UN were trying to get money to get aid to the region at the beginning of June, calling for a miniscule $16.2m to get food in to Niger, but by June the 3rd had "not had a single pledge for money for its Niger appeal."
I'm sure many would think it in bad taste to try to make comparisons, but there have to be priorities in these matters, and I am rather uneasy at the sharp focus on the UN's condemnation of Mugabe's undeniably disastrous bulldozing campaign, while there's nearly no coverage of the developing famine. The attention there is has come too late, it would seem.

Friday, July 22, 2005

More terror

More attacks. Failed attempts at explosions? Dormant explosives? Faulty detonators? Still unclear.
Police have shot a man at close range (5 times) with the clear intention of killing him at Stockwell tube station - wires sticking out of his shirt, reports say.
A game of cat-and-mouse around UCL Hospital - 3 rooms still sealed off, and no one is talking. A memo was sent around the hospital telling staff to look out for a man with wires sticking out of his shirt. Senior hospital staff deny the memo ever existed, but Channel 4 news correspondent Liam Halligan said "I have seen it with my own eyes."
What does it all mean? Right now it's all extremely unclear.
The only certainty seems to be that CCTV is playing a fundamental role in identifying these people and tracking their movements (after the fact). Presumably, it will continue to do so. The implications could be interesting.
It seems to me that now is not the time to legislate. Perhaps we ought to be grateful for MPs extremely long summer holidays...

Legislation, written by September to be voted on in October. We ought to be wary of rushing anything through - it seems the wheels are very much in motion.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

More Iraq and Terror

Yesterday's New York Times carried details of a leaked intelligence report, prepared by JTAC (Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre). The NYT focussed on its conclusion that "at present there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack the U.K." which 'prompted the British government to lower its formal threat assessment one level, from "severe defined" to "substantial."'

Intelligence failures have not really been discussed (yet) in relation to the London bombings, though, and a more significant element of the leaked report is this sentence: "Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the U.K." Again, a stark contradiction to what the government insists, but basically what the world's intelligence community has been saying for about 2 years (and in truth, the only sensible assessment.)
As the FT reports this morning, the government is now "on the defensive," and Blair might come under pressure on this matter at PMQs today.

In other news, John G. Roberts will replace Sanra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. The NYT has this to say:
'The conservative Progress for America called Judge Roberts a "terrific nominee," while Naral Pro-Choice America denounced him as an "unsuitable choice," and a "divisive nominee with a record of seeking to impose a political agenda on the courts."But significantly, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader of the body that will determine Judge Roberts's fate, was much more subdued, hewing to the Democrats' stated strategy of demanding a thorough vetting of any nominee by describing Judge Roberts as "someone with suitable legal credentials," whose record must now be examined "to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."'
It appears then, as though the Democrats won't be too outraged by the choice - Bush appears (rather predictably) to have gone for a politically safe bet, rather than attempting to appease the more extreme elements of his support-base.
Roberts' assertion that "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land" might give comfort to those who feared a more extreme nominee.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Iraq and terror

The debate about the connections between Iraq and last Thursday's attacks seems still to have some life in it - even if it still isn't really front-page news. Last night, Channel 4 News got really quite excited about a paragraph in a Chatham House (RIIA) briefing paper about security and terrorism (pdf only). In an article by Frank Gregory and Paul Wilkinson entitled "Riding Pillion for Tackling Terrorism is a High-risk Policy," the authors write "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism. It gave a boost to the Al-Qaeda network’s propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists...Riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and US military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure, and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign."

Jack Straw could only express his "absolute astonishment" at the suggestion, but this is hardly anything very new, and as much as I respect Paul Wilkinson, his comments hardly carry the sort of authority held by the Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, who in February told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists. These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism.They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries...The Iraq conflict...has become a cause for extremists."
Again, this isn't exactly unusual, but if Straw is astonished by Chatham House's assertions, we can be sure his views diverge a long way from those of the Director of the CIA. It might be reasonable, in this case, for Mr Straw to explain why his analysis of the situation differs so greatly from the CIA, and what the basis is for his own views (all he offered yesterday was "September the 11th happened in September 2001.") Well, that puts Straw's "absolute astonishment" in some context, but doesn't give me much faith in the man in charge of UK foreign policy.

Monday, July 11, 2005

Initial reactions

Since Thursday morning, thinking about the implications of the bombing in London has occupied most of my spare time. Here are a few thoughts:
Despite the best efforts of a few, the bombings are unlikely to be a catalyst for an anti-government backlash in particular, or an anti-Iraq backlash in general. George Galloway's statement to the House of Commons on Thursday - essentially that "Londoners have now paid the price of hte government ignoring" warnings that "the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of a terrorist attack in Britain" - is said to have "angered many at Westminster," the Financial Times reports. Perhaps Labour's Liverpool anti-war MP Peter Kilfoyle was correct to say that "now is not the time" to discuss the matter. (Christopher Adams, FT, 8 July, p.5)
Galloway's comments have been echoed in numerous comment pieces in the last few days, however, with pieces by Tariq Ali in Friday's Guardian (p. 24), Robert Fisk in Friday's Independent (p. 33) and Dilip Hiro in Sunday's IoS (p. 30) all making similar points.
However, the sentiment hardly seems widespread. The editors of the Independent on Sunday seem to be mroe representative of the mood of most media commentators: "we accept that British troops should not have been withdrawn from Iraq after the invasion and should not be withdrawn now. As such, we have to face the terrorist threat squarely." (Leading Article, p. 27)
We can assume the arguments will be given a little more flesh and sophistication, especially if the bombers were British citizens (as former Met. Police Commissioner John Stevens suggested they "almost certainly" were in yesterday's News of the World - see James Blitz and Jimmy Burns, FT, 11 July, p. 2), but Polly Toynbee's argument on ID cards will very likely find widespread agreement: "ID cards may get an easier passage now that they can show a clearer purpose. Where the security services and intelligence plainly failed abysmally to detect any of hte elaborate planning for this atrocity, attention may turn to sterner measures against the hundreds of thousands of foreigners living here illegally." (Guardian, 8 July, p. 23)
More generally, Blair's popularity could well soar if he continues to be seen to have dealt well with the crisis, for reasons noted by James Blitz (FT, July 9/10, p. 13)
The comment pages of the Guardian/Observer have played host to an indirect ongoing discussion about Blair's responsibility for the attacks, with Nick Cohen preaching that because "Islamism was a reactionary movement as great as fascism," and moreover "an autonomous psychopathic force with reasons of its own," no responsibility for the attacks can be laid at the door of Number 10 (or the White House). Gary Younge responded today with a reiteration of the arguments set out by Ali, Fisk and Hiro. I doubt this debate will generate much interest - particularly as it was done to death in the weeks after 9/11. Perhaps, if it gains a sufficiently wide audience, the view of Robin Cook will gain some popularity. On Friday, he wrote: "So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail...Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us." Not too controversial, but still somewhat at odds with the "war on terror" generally. It won't have much impact, though, unless "attacks" are conceived much more broadly than the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (something on that scale is pretty unlikely for a few years, given the disastrous occupation of Iraq). The "attacks" as many supporters of the jihadis see them, include unflinching support for Israel, the close relationship with Saudi Arabia, and the attempts to undermine the democratic opposition in Iran. A radical reorientation in foreign policy is the natural conclusion to be drawn from Cook's proposals - something very different from the policy he pursued as Foreign Secretary, and something unlikely to emerge under a 'New' Labour government.

Jeffrey Sachs, blogging for the FT, praised Britain's response to the attacks on Friday, saying "There were no pogroms, attacks on London’s large Muslim population, Rather there were statements of praise for the Muslim community, for its integral role in London life. There was no rush to judgment, no bluster, no jingoism, only the steady voices of British politicians directing a democratic response to this most undemocratic of deeds." Others were not so confident - Jonathan Guthrie wrote that "The long-feared assault on the capital is predicted to trigger a resurgence in hostility towards Muslims that followed September 11." (FT, July 8, p. 5), suggesting the next day that "Reprisals [against British Muslims] could create a new generation of radicals" (Roula Khalaf and Jonathan Guthrie, FT, July 9/10, p. 7). Today it emerges that "hate crimes" against Muslims have already resulted in one "serious injury." (James Blitz and Jimmy Burns, FT, July 11, p. 2)

The attacks have almost totally overshadowed coverage of the G8 summit, leaving most ignorant of the lack of substance behind the propagandistic "pledges" on debt, world trade and climate change. "Campaigners who had backed Mr Blair's campaign to increase aid to Africa were disappointed, saying that much of the money was a restatement of existing pledges and that it fell far short of what was needed." (James Blitz, Alan Beattie and Fiona Harvey, FT, 9/10 July, p. 1). Reports on the agreements give ample scope for disappointment, but it is likely to remain confined to campaigners - the millions who enjoyed Live 8 are unlikely to notice their complaints in the sparse coverage. Dramatic progress in the near future seems rather unlikely, as WTO director-general Supachai Panitchpakdi warned "progress [on trade negotiations] is nowhere near sufficient in terms of our critical path to Hong Kong," which will host a WTO meeting in December. (Alan Beattie, FT, July 9/10, p. 8) If the already existing agenda of the Doha round cannot be agreed, then agreement on radical moves to seriously reduce poverty in the world's poorest countries look pretty unlikely - perhaps one reason for the weak deals made this week.
A more critical perspective might describe the whole affair as a sham.

Finally, two articles - one short one and one longer one - from Jason Burke, who well deserves his description on the Guardian website as "The world's leading expert on al-Qaeda." " Fundamentally, this is an amateurish, lo-tech operation. It indicates a small group who did what they could with limited resources available," he reckons. In this case, hopefully organising any more attacks in the near future will be beyond their capacity - we can only hope so.

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Environmentalism: class warfare?

Once you've started thinking about class, you begin to see it everywhere. This has resulted in some right nonsense from various "Marxists" over the years. Then again, maybe there's something in it.
George Monbiot has a column in the New Statesman this week, in which he argues that voluntary environmentalism is hopeless, and government regulations are necessary to save us all from ultimate doom. He's probably right, but in passing, he made a very interesting proposal about voluntary environmentalism - failing to link it to government-led energy reductions (it would have been tangenital and somewhat contradictory to the thrust of his argument.).
"At its worst, and especially when articulated by the elite, it is a means of securing ecological space for yourself against the competing claims of the hoipolloi. The environment movement in Britain and its colonies arose in part from anti-poaching efforts: game reserves were turned into nature reserves for the continued benefit of the hunting class. Will climate change campaigns now reserve airspace for pop stars?"
The answer to his question appears to be a very definite yes. Aside from some vague statements about nuclear (fission, then fusion) being the only realistic way to go, the government's environmental policies aimed at reducing consumption all have one thing in common: they're rooted in regressive taxes. Probably the most important anti-consumption measure the pressure groups want the government to take - and probably the one it will implement - is a tax on air travel. At the moment, air passenger duty (APD) is a specific tax - varying depending on what kind of seat you have and where you're going - while fuel tax is a sales tax. That means both APD and fuel tax are regressive (for APD, highly regressive), and no one seems to be proposing changing the nature of the tax - the pressure groups just want it to go up.
This means that airspace for pop stars is exactly where we are heading. Put APD up to £500 - still specific - and you've priced the working classes out of the market entirely.
If the government follows its current plans, the effect will be precisely to secure necessarily scarce space on planes for the rich. Whether Britain's working and middle-classes will stand for any of this remains to be seen; perhaps they can be won over by threats of ultimate doom if they refuse to comply, who knows.
Monbiot is right to say voluntary environmentalism is hopelessly hypocritical. What seems to have escaped his attention is that the same is true of our government.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Making Poverty History

On Wednesday, I'll be in Edinburgh, trying (peacefully!) to disrupt the G8 summit. So yesterday, I decided to do a bit of reading about development, in order that I might be able to articulate better what I feel is wrong with the global economy, and how these faults might be overcome. Essentially, I wanted to form a decent theoretical critique of the policies followed by the industrialised countries and the global financial institutions under their control (IMF, WTO, World Bank), and some reasonable proposals for the direction of development in the future.
It didn't come as a huge surprsie to me that it was rather more complicated than I initially thought, especially when it comes to suggesting better development strategies. A fascinating eye-opener has been Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker's paper from June 2002, "The Relative Impact of Trade Liberalization on Developing Countries"
First, a warning: I found this paper pretty hard going, and I consider myself to have a reasonably solid understanding of economics, and a special interest in global trade and development issues. Neither am I eloquent enough to simplify it very much.
Probably the most surprising element of it is that it proposes that the protection of agriculture and manufactured goods by rich countries is basically insignificant, relative to other factors. They reckon 'liberalisation' by developing countries would have a more significant impact than 'liberalisation' by rich countries, but even this is pretty marginal compared to other factors. "the World Bank's projections imply that trade liberalization would only move developing countries a very small fraction of the way towards the sort of rapid growth experienced by South Korea or other successful developing countries."
In simpler terms, this suggests that the wailing by development charities like Oxfam (and, when politically convenient, Tony Blair) about the outrages of the CAP (or US steel tariffs, or whatever..) really misses the point.
Weisbrot and Baker also point out a number of rather unrealistic assumptions in the models used by the World Bank to make growth projections for developing countries, based on trade liberalisation. They note that assumptions about capital accumulation, urbanisation and labour mobility take no account of the massive social upheavals the projected development would produce.
Probably the most urgent element of Dean Baker's work on development is his insistence that imposing US-style patent laws on a global scale will lead to huge inefficiencies in the pharmaceutical market. This will have the effect of discouraging innovation, and of imposing collossal costs on consumers. In Africa of course, this isnt a matter of slapping another couple of quid on the price of a prescription - it's literally a matter of life and death if people can't afford vaccination/treatment for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. It's in these matters, which those with no time to trawl through the business pages every day may well not even be aware of, that developing countries' fates will be (and are being) decided.
"Make Poverty History" has at least brought development as an issue to public attention, in Britain and perhaps elsewhere. But celebration and self-congratulation are not appropriate responses to announcements about debt relief or aid increases. The real problems lie far deeper - so deep in fact, that they have yet even to be uncovered by the debates of the last few weeks. Those who care about development and global poverty have made fantastic progress in the last decade or so, and the foundation for a great deal more awareness and informed discussion about it now exists. But it's at this crucial moment that the whole debate needs desperately to become much more sophisticated, in order to improve peoples' understanding of the real issues. For as long as abolishing the CAP is the distant dream of development campaigners, real progress will prove impossible. So let's see Walden Bello, Joseph Stiglitz or Amartya Sen on Newsnight when Africa is up for discussion, instead of Bono.