When Strategic Interests Conflict

What's the difference between human rights abuses in China and human rights abuses in Turkey? On one the US is willing to ignore threats from its counterpart, bestowing the Congressional Gold Medal, its highest civilian honour on the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama today. On the other the US is backing off from legislation approved last week by a congressional panel to call a vote on a measure declaring the World War I-era killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks an act of genocide.

The proximity of Turkey to the ongoing conflict in Iraq might explain the apparent inconsistency...

An Unquiet World

Almost before any of us have had a chance to digest Tuesday's report from the Globalisation and Global Poverty Policy Group, the Conservative Party's National and International Security Policy Group has today published its own final report, An Unquiet World. Unlike the ground-breaking first report from the Social Justice Policy Group, it is not always obvious why we had to wait eighteen months. For instance, take the first four conclusions:

• The UK has not made enough of its natural advantages in developing a close relationship with India.
• Our civil liberties at home and our human rights record abroad matter and must be upheld in a consistent manner.
• The broader Middle East is a region in turmoil. ... Iraq has made some aspects worse.
• The risk and danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have been increased by the situation in the broader Middle East.

... Or its verdict on the key relationships and institutions:

• The continuing importance of the transatlantic Alliance.
• The vital need for functioning US European relations.
• UK security involves close partnership in Europe.
• Functioning international law and invigorated international institutions protect and promote our interests. ... The UK should put effort into UN reform generally and Security Council enlargement in particular.

None of this sounds particularly fresh or insightful. Even once it reaches the sections on security, its criticisms of Government and European policy are nothing new:

• The identity of the British people needs to be rebuilt to include minority communities on the basis of shared values and active equal citizenship.
• The UK is without arrangements in place for guaranteed energy supply or a strategic reserve available for emergencies.
• Policies being pursued by European governments towards Russia and the countries on the EU’s borders in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe do not serve the political and security interest of member states as well as they could and should.
• It is urgent for EU leaders to agree with Turkey a way forward on the accession negotiations.
• Our armed forces which serve the nation with great professionalism round the world are overstretched and there is no reserve available for emergency. ... Their mission no longer corresponds to the real security requirements of the nation.

The real interest, therefore, doesn't come until we reach its recommendations. It suggests that an incoming Conservative government should:

• Conduct a Defence review not with the aim of inflicting further cuts, but of ensuring that our armed forces have been asked to do the right job, are properly equipped and trained and are employed on the right terms and conditions.
• Establish a dedicated force with a permanent command headquarters for homeland defence and security, to provide assistance as and when requested to the civil authorities in the event of a major terrorist incident or other national emergency.
• Maximise the influence of its considerable range of soft power assets (such as the British Council, the BBC World Service, and British university system). British diplomacy, an asset neglected by the Labour Government, should be revitalised.
• Create a National Security Council in the Cabinet Office. The FCO should be brought back from the sidelines. The FCO and DfID should develop a dedicated civil expeditionary capability.
• Adapt the method of budgeting for spending on the external aspects of national security by relevant departments (FCO, MOD, DfID) to support a national security approach and alter spending patterns to fund more adequately reform and nation building programmes relevant to the establishment of open societies.

Perhaps it should come as little surprise that "Much of the existing policy base is valid and should be built on." However, particularly coming so soon after the Prime Minister adopted Conservative calls for a unified border force (even though Brown's version turns out not be to quite as radical a reform as initially appeared), we could have hoped for a greater emphasis on those elements that would demonstrate to the public that there is in fact a difference between the major political parties — and that the Conservatives are the Party that can best meet the nation's domestic and international security challenges. ... Let's hope the next policy groups establish a little more "clear blue water" in their reports.

Cyber Jihad

"As with nuclear or biological warfare, the Web is a dual-use technology. Technically adept Muslims, using out-of-the-box PC software and hardware, are outputting an electronic torrent of slick Web sites, discussion forums, videos, e-magazines and long-form movies, all with one purpose--to incite Muslims to join the jihad against the enemies of Islam in Baghdad, London, Glasgow or New York. Forget those Iraqi attack videos on YouTube; this is a sophisticated, globally distributed propaganda operation ... The language is invariably religious. There's no effort here to appeal to nationalistic sentiment; thus, for a global audience, the Islamic argument becomes wholly religious."

So writes Daniel Henninger in today's Wall Street Journal, describing a new study of Islamic media propaganda, "Iraqi Insurgent Media: The War of Images and Ideas" from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

The report documents in significant detail the extent that media outlets and products created by Sunni insurgents in Iraq and their supporters seek to win hearts and minds by creating an alternate reality that feeds into the global jihadist media, and how this is "undermining the authority of the Iraqi government, demonizing coalition forces, fomenting sectarian strife, glorifying terrorism, and perpetrating falsehoods that obscure the accounts of responsible journalists." The authors argue that efforts to counter insurgent media should not focus on producing better propaganda than the insurgents, or trying to eliminate the demand for the insurgent message, but rather on exploiting the vulnerabilities of the insurgent media network:

"The popularity of online Iraqi Sunni insurgent media reflects a genuine demand for their message in the Arab world. An alternative, no matter how lavishly funded and cleverly produced, will not eliminate this demand. But this does not mean we should concede the battle without a fight. The vulnerabilities of insurgent media remain to be exploited."

"The lack of central coordination impedes coherence and message control. There is a widening rift between homegrown nationalist groups and the global jihadists who have gathered under the banner of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Moreover, insurgent media have not yet faced a serious challenge to their message on the Internet."

With the White House's interim Iraq report today warning that although military progress is satisfactory, political reconciliation is lagging, quite clearly it is not just the security situation in Iraq itself that remains "complex and extremely challenging." The battle is being waged right here in cyberspace.

Not Another Cold War

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Asserting that John F. Kennedy overstated his case in his inaugural address in 1961, the International Herald Tribune has an interesting take on last week's speech by President Bush on Communism, Islamism and freedom:

After Sept. 11, Bush replicated the excesses of the Cold War when he established a prison outside the law at Guantánamo Bay, circumscribed domestic civil liberties, encouraged the use of torture abroad, and alienated long-time allies by insisting on invading Iraq without their support.

"Like the Communists, the followers of violent Islamic radicalism are doomed to fail," Bush said. He is right, but why strengthen their cause by abusing human rights and embarking on a divisive military intervention, much like those in the Cold War?

See also: The New Cold War and Star Wars

Free Kurdistan?

A Turkish invasion would, according to the IHT, "infuriate Arabs, who would resent any Turkish return to areas once ruled by the Ottoman Empire. It would finish off any remaining hope of Turkey joining the European Union. And it would put a huge strain on Turkey's fragile democratic politics. In short, it would be a disaster."

So, why is a huge military build-up already under way on the Turkish side of the border and why has Ankara been issuing a flurry of angry charges that the Iraqi Kurds are providing sanctuary to murderous anti-Turkish guerrillas? Quite simply, because should Iraq finally achieve a peaceful status in our lifetimes, it will probably involve a tripartite federal state and, with a Kurdish state on its borders, Turkey's 15 million-strong Kurdish minority may be emboldened to demand autonomy or independence. However, any pre-emptive Turkish incursion into Iraq now would pose a serious threat to the already unstable balance that America is holding in Iraq, so it is unlikely they are going to stand idly by and watch their already fragile work undone.

Media coverage may not currently make the Turkish-Kurdish conflict seem as live an issue as the hopes of Israelis and Palestinians, but the reality is that any peace deal in the Middle East is going to need to accommodate all those who have nursed historic grievances—which means that those who are negotiating peace deals and introducing democracy to the region need to possess a rounded understanding of history and involve all parties.

Iraq Turns To Drugs

Anyone concerned about the flood of cheap heroin coming to Britain from Afghanistan will want to read today's frontpage story in The Independent.

The paper reports that "Farmers in southern Iraq have started to grow opium poppies in their fields for the first time, sparking fears that Iraq might become a serious drugs producer along the lines of Afghanistan." It carries two warnings. Firstly, that although the shift to opium cultivation is still in its early stages "there is little the Iraqi government can do about it because rival Shia militias and their surrogates in the security forces control Diwaniya and its neighbourhood." Secondly, "given that they can guarantee much higher profits from growing opium poppies than can be made from rice, many impoverished Iraqi farmers are likely to cultivate the new crop."

Once again, what have we done?

Tom, Dick & Harry

So, now the insurgents are using precision-made mines that fire "explosively formed projectiles" capable of penetrating the armour of even our soldiers' Challenger 2 tanks, with their nuclear- chemical- and biological attack-resistant compartments, Iraq is too dangerous for Harry.

I bet Tom and Dick are encouraged.

Liberty in Iraq

Under Saddam Hussein, there were about 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, many of them reaching the highest levels of power, such as former foreign minister and deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz.

Today, many churches are virtually empty and as many as half the Christians may have left the country in the last four years, according to a report by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Is this really the liberty and freedom that we promised?

About Iraq, the report states:

This year the Commission has added Iraq to its Watch List, due to the alarming and deteriorating situation for freedom of religion and belief. Despite ongoing efforts to stabilize the country, successive Iraqi governments have not adequately curbed the growing scope and severity of human rights abuses. Although non-state actors, particularly the Sunni-dominated insurgency, are responsible for a substantial proportion of the sectarian violence and associated human rights violations, the Iraqi government also bears responsibility. That responsibility takes two forms. First, the Iraqi government has engaged in human rights violations through its state security forces, including arbitrary arrest, prolonged detention without due process, extrajudicial executions, and torture. These violations affect suspected Sunni insurgents, but also ordinary Sunnis who are targeted on the basis of their religious identity. Second, the Iraqi government tolerates religiously based attacks and other religious freedom abuses carried out by armed Shi’a factions including the Jaysh al-Mehdi (Mahdi Army) and the Badr Organization. These abuses include abductions, beatings, extrajudicial executions, torture and rape. Relationships between these para-state militias and leading Shi’a factions within Iraq’s ministries and governing coalition indicate that these groups operate with impunity and often, governmental complicity. Although many of these militia-related violations reveal the challenges evident in Iraq’s fragmented political system, they nonetheless reflect the Iraqi government’s tolerance—and in some instances commission—of egregious violations of religious freedom. Finally, the Commission also notes the grave conditions for non-Muslims in Iraq, including ChaldoAssyrian Christians, Yazidis, and Sabean Mandaeans, who continue to suffer pervasive and severe violence and discrimination at the hands of both government and non-government actors. The Commission has added Iraq to its Watch List with the understanding that it may designate Iraq as a CPC [country of particular concern] next year if improvements are not made by the Iraqi government.

At the Center of the Storm

In a new book due out on Monday, At the Center of the Storm, America's former director of central intelligence, George Tenet, has accused Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials of pushing the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a "serious debate" about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States or about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion. He now fears that US forces are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the management of sectarian violence in Iraq and questions the wisdom of Bush's "surge" strategy.

In an interview ahead of the book's launch, Tenet has also claimed that aggressive interrogation tactics such as the questioning of "high value" targets using sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, and "water boarding" saved lives, could not be defined as torture, and were worth more to the security of the United States than all the work done by the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, which tracks foreign electronic communications.

The first detailed account by a member of President Bush's inner circle during the 9/11 attacks and invasion of Iraq, the book looks set to be a controversial and perhaps illuminating read. If anyone gets to read it, do let us know what you think.

Baghdad's Berlin Wall

First came the Berlin Wall - a symbol of the Cold War, of separation and tyranny.

Next we had the construction of the 370-mile-long barrier dividing the city of Jerusalem and the Palestinian-populated West Bank region. The American reaction to this was a threat to withhold part of a $9 billion Israeli aid package.

Now, despite their criticism of Israel, American military commanders in Baghdad are building a 12-foot-high, three-mile-long wall separating a historic Sunni enclave from Shi'ite neighbourhoods in an attempt to quell the widening sectarian violence.

If Israel's checkpoints were wrong both for isolating and entrapping Palestinians, how is Baghdad's new "Berlin Wall" any different?  Moreover, how is it going to prevent any violence?  Surely it is just going to increase sectarian tensions and make the US and Iraqi checkpoint guards another symbol of occupation to be targeted by insurgents?

The Rise Of Islam

"Not long before the British surrendered to the Americans at Yorktown in 1781, assurances were still being given in parliament that ‘so vast is our superiority everywhere that no resistance on their part is to be apprehended’. Today, with not even Baghdad secured after over four years of war — and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars — the White House still talks in terms of a ‘victory’ over ‘extremists’ and ‘killers’, even if the delusion that a Jeffersonian democracy can be created in Mesopotamia appears to have been abandoned."

Drawing parallels between George Bush's war in Iraq and George III's war against the American colonists, David Selbourne argues in The Spectator that "the American imperium has entered on its decline after only some six decades" and that it is now "the turn of Islam to assert itself, for the third time in history, across large swaths of the globe."

If he is right, then not only is it imperative that we in the West should understand the contribution of Christianity to Western culture, but we also need to understand Islam and the differences between moderate Islam and fundamentalist Islam, or Islamism.

One of the principal differences between Islamism and Western democracy is in their approach to academic scrutiny. Like the predominant threat against our Western ideals throughout much of the last century, namely Communism, Islamism is intolerant of dissent, looking to and justifying its ideas and beliefs on the basis of an ultimate authority that cannot be questioned. By contrast, ideas in the West are accepted by submitting them to public inspection.

For Islamists, truth and knowledge are thus not to be discovered through open criticism and public enquiry but are represented by the revelation of God to the prophet Mohammed as recorded in the Koran and supplemented by the record of Mohammed's actions and sayings. As far as such Muslim fundamentalists are concerned, Western society is corrupt and weak because it is different from, and therefore inferior to, the perfect society described in their Scriptures – one that dictates, for instance, inequality between men and women and between Muslims and non-Muslims. By denying the equivalent of the separation between Church and State that allowed Western society to flourish, they promise those who accept their worldview not utopia in this life but paradise in the next and promise their martyrs a certain salvation that is unavailable in Islam by any other means.

You may recall a year or so ago when producers of Marlowe's Tamburlaine the Great at the Barbican censored references to Islam in order to avoid the risk of a violent backlash from Muslims to the playwright's scenes in which the hero burns the Koran and says that Mohammed is "not worthy to be worshipped" and "remains in hell." Such censorship was not only a victory for political correctness over common sense but a defeat in our attempt to defend the Western tradition of freedom in the ongoing clash of civilisations that is the wider stage upon which the so-called war on terror is being conducted.

Countries such as Indonesia prove to the world that Islam is able to embrace the concept of individual liberties, such as freedom of expression. We whose societies are founded upon the freedoms imparted by our Christian heritage need to engage constructively with such moderates, seeking to understand their faith from their perspective, if we are to prevent the freedoms that are the building blocks of our way of life from being increasingly eroded over the coming years.

Just War

On the back of last night's Question Time Iraq Special, here's a couple of paragraph's from Christopher Catherwood's article Christians, Iraq and Just War in the first issue of The Difference Magazine:

"The war in Iraq poses considerable problems. Morally speaking, as those who defended it, from William Hague in the Conservative Party to Nick Cohen on the left, remind us, anyone who opposes the war has to answer the hard question, 'Would you have left Saddam Hussein in power?'

"As someone who, like Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind and Andrew Lansley, opposed the war, I am very aware of the force of this moral argument. There is a sense in which getting rid of Saddam could be seen as just cause. Yet, as I was asked at the time on the Christian radio station Premier Radio, if evil and oppressive dictatorship is in and of itself just cause, why are we not after, for example, Robert Mugabe as well? That, too, is a fair point."

After explaining why Iraq fails to satisfy a number of the criteria of a just war, including requirements that it be defensive, have a clear outcome, and be based on legitimate authority, Christopher then goes on:

"Iraq is a war I would in many ways love to have supported, but felt that from a Christian viewpoint I could not. Apart from anything else, we changed a secular regime in Iraq that gave full freedom of religion to the very large Assyrian and Chaldean Christian minority there – not of course forgetting Saddam’s psychopathic oppression of his opponents – and have ended up with an increasingly Shiite theocratic regime which actively persecutes the rapidly dwindling Christian population. It is responsible for attacks on the Sunni Muslim minority, who, unlike the Christians, fight back militarily and are thus plunging the nation into civil war."

To continue reading, subscribe to the magazine.

From Hope To Despair

"There is no life at all. We are eating, drinking and sleeping like animals, but animals are lucky because they are not scared all the time like we are. They don't think that they might be killed at any moment, so I think even the animals are much happier than us," said one Baghdad resident in a poll of more than 2000 Iraqis, four years after the invasion.

By a ratio of more than 4-to-1, the Iraqis said they have little confidence in British and American troops and two-thirds said that they've seen little progress on reconstruction despite the billions spent on aid.

As top military commanders have been saying publicly for some months, we desperately need a new and different approach if we are to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.

UPDATE: The BBC has analysis of the full results here

Arrests in Prayer Protests

CNN reports that thousands of Christians in America kicked off a weekend of worldwide anti-war protests by praying for peace at a service in the Washington National Cathedral, ahead of Tuesday's fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq.  222 people were arrested after the service for demonstrating on the pavement outside the White House and for crossing a police line. The organisers called for "a surge in conscience and a surge in activism and a surge in truth-telling."

That religion plays a more significant role in American politics is evident from the comment of one first-time protester: "A lot of the rhetoric that we hear coming from Christians has been dominated by the religious right and has been strong advocacy for the war. That's just not the way I read my Gospel."

Saturday's demonstrations have begun with hundreds of supporters of the war verbally clashing with as many as 30,000 anti-war demonstrators as they formed a march from the Vietnam War Memorial to the Pentagon.