Time For Dialogue

This blog has previously argued for taking a more conciliatory approach to Iran (see Conservative Muslims May Be Right and Influencing Iran). In the wake of Monday's revelations from the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, The Washington Post is also now suggesting America should open direct talks with Tehran:

Negotiating will appear at first to be a sign of weakness. The Iranians could use talks to exploit fissures between the United States and its allies, and within the U.S. political system.

But there is a good case for negotiations. Many around the world and in the United States have imagined that the obstacle to improved Iranian behavior has been America's unwillingness to talk. This is a myth, but it will hamper American efforts now and for years to come. Eventually, the United States will have to take the plunge, as it has with so many adversaries throughout its history.

Going on, the author Robert Kagan notes, "The United States simultaneously contained the Soviet Union, negotiated with the Soviet Union and pressed for political change in the Soviet Union -- supporting dissidents, communicating directly to the Russian people through radio and other media, and holding the Soviet government to account under such international human rights agreements as the Helsinki Accords. There's no reason the United States cannot talk to Iran while beefing up containment in the region and pressing for change within Iran."

Whether the Bush administration proves to be "smart and creative enough" to adopt such an approach could affect us all.

Conservative Muslims May Be Right

When it comes to issues such as the importance of family and marriage in society, Christians can find that they have more in common with people of other faiths than they do with people of no faith. So, although you may not find me agreeing with Muslims on any points of theology, the Conservative Muslim Forum may well be right in their response to the Globalisation and Global Poverty Policy Group's report An Unquiet World:

"Regardless of the foreign policies of the United States, hostility to Iran is not in Britain's national interest. A constructive engagement with Iran offers many possibilities for progress... Instead of joining the United States in demonising Iran, Britain should assist Iran in addressing these legitimate security concerns in a manner that improves our security rather than weakening it."

In the current issue of The Difference, Christopher Catherwood argues that neither a military strike nor economic sanctions would be likely to provide a solution to the threat posed by Iran:

"To attack Iran would be to unite all Iranians against us, even those who might otherwise be deemed progressive. An attack on Iran would also, the experts claim, be logistically almost impossible to win, as the relevant nuclear material can be hidden in thousands of underground places all over the country, even if the two major installations could successfully be taken out in a large-scale strike.

But if we cannot attack Iran, and the hardliners and even moderates seem to want a nuclear capability, what can the West do? Russia refuses to get involved, as it considers anybody who damages the US or its interests as its friend, however dangerous they might be. Not only that but if Iran’s neighbours, including a majority Shia Iraq, refused to operate sanctions, then no matter how harsh the financial measures the rest of the world might want to impose, they would be unlikely to provide a solution."

So, what options are left? Well, as the GGPPG intimated in An Unquiet World, there is the possibility of applying diplomatic pressure through India which, despite having voted twice against Tehran at the IAEA, maintains a strategic relationship with Iran and "is extending ties to other countries in the region with an equal interest in restraining Iran, including Saudi Arabia. The Saudi kingdom is India’s largest provider of oil and is home to an estimated 1.5 million Indian nationals. As important, it is one of the few Islamic theocracies viewed favourably by the West, which has worked for a demilitarised Kashmir and has supported India’s observership in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference."

As this blog argued earlier in the year, there is also an opportunity for America to undermine the mullahs' theocratic regime and promote democratic reform by lifting economic sanctions. So, to answer the question about whether or not to engage with Iran, I am inclined to agree with the CMF that while we should continue to oppose Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions, our approach "should be one of negotiation and mutual dialogues, not threats" and "our primary goal should be assisting in the strengthening of Iranian state institutions to avoid any risk of the transfer of nuclear technology to non state actors."

Too Hot to Handle?

The world would have to build new nuclear power stations at the unprecedented rate of four a month if nuclear energy is to play a serious part in fighting global warming, according to a new report by the Oxford Research Group.

The report, Too Hot to Handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power, claims that this is both logistically impossible and has major implications for world security that negate any argument in favour of nuclear power:

"For the nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks to be worth taking, nuclear must be able to achieve energy security and a reduction in global CO2 emissions more effectively, efficiently, economically and quickly than any other energy source. There is little evidence to support the claim that it can, whereas the evidence for doubting nuclear power’s efficacy is clear."

Unfortunately for the authors of the report, just two weeks ago the World Energy Council asserted that nuclear power will have to be a major part of the new energy mix, noting that "the development of nuclear power in many countries was driven by concerns about energy security and the need for self-sufficiency, but also has significant benefits in reducing emissions." Observing that "countries with a high dependence on nuclear have achieved levels of emissions some 40% lower than countries which are otherwise in a similar position but which have rejected the nuclear option or have a significantly lower penetration of nuclear," it also suggests that "nuclear, like other technologies, is undergoing continuing technical improvements. Many of the existing objections to nuclear can at least be mitigated, and possibly removed, potentially enabling it to make a bigger contribution to meeting the climate change challenge."

The likes of the Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy Spokesperson, writing in the foreword to today's ORG report, may claim "If one were to set out to design from scratch a solution for the problem of climate change in a world without nuclear power, there is little chance that anyone would come up with nuclear power as that solution, or, if they did, that anyone would think that nuclear power was anywhere near acceptable." However, realists are going to need to heed sounder advice from experts such as Professor Michael Laughton, who recently warned that, in its pursuit of other objectives — however worthwhile they may be — the Government cannot overlook the fundamental purpose of any energy policy. We do not need to build four new nuclear power stations a month in a fruitless attempt to combat a process over which we have little control — What we need is to ensure the provision of reliable and affordable energy supplies.

Sex, Drugs But No Power

Sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll — The 1960s is the decade most people would most like to live in. Now, it seems, today's "youf" are trying to re-create that bygone utopia of sexual and social liberalisation, but I have to wonder whether they have not forgotten one crucial ingredient: flower power.

The Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV (IAG) says there is an indisputable link between alcohol, drugs and risky sexual behaviour, describing the threat as fuel for a sexual health crisis. Given the failure of the Government's Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, drug policy, and approach to teenage binge drinkers, this should come no surprise.

Noting that sexual health in the UK has been deteriorating over the last twelve years, the group warns that young people are starting to have sexual intercourse at a younger age, are becoming more promiscuous in their behaviour, and have the highest rate of sexually transmitted infections and teenage pregnancies in Europe. Their report asks, "As adults, are we reneging on our responsibilities?"

Rather than answer what seems a blindingly simple question with a blatantly obvious answer, I want to turn the query around: Are today's youth reneging on their responsibilities? If they've rediscovered the sex (earlier and riskier) and the drugs (stronger and more dangerous), why haven't they stumbled onto rock'n'roll? They've got their Vietnam (Iraq), so where are the non-violent anti-war protests? They've got their nuclear causes (renewal of Trident and next generation of power stations), so where are the sit-down demonstrations? They've got their gun crime and armed police, so why is nobody giving flowers to policemen?

The IAG claims "young people do not engage in risky behaviour: they experiment and explore" but I'm not convinced ... It seems to me that Generation Blair has missed the point.

A Country Without A Hero

Russia's President Vladimir Putin yesterday maintained, "We consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a powder keg and to fill it with new kinds of weapons." Yet, in the latest round of what increasingly looks like a new Cold War, Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister and presidential hopeful Sergei Ivanov announced that the former superpower has successfully tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple independent warheads and a tactical cruise missile with an increased range "capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defence systems."

Perhaps now would be a good time for "Vanity Blair" to allow his successor Gordon "Joseph Sedley?" Brown to get on with the job of running our country. By all means, let our latter-day "Captain George Osborne" continue his tax-payer funded world tour, selling weapons of mass destruction to former terrorist states as he goes, but with such significant developments taking place on the world stage, we cannot afford any further paralysis or stagnation by this unprecedented electoral inter-regnum.

The New Cold War

"A more efficient sword can be found for every shield."

This latest salvo was the threatening response of Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister and likely successor to President Putin, Sergei Ivanov, to last week's uncompromising remarks from America about its missile defence shield plans. Without actually pledging to opt out of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, he described the pact as "a relic, a rudiment of the Cold War" and maintained that "Russia is one of the leading global powers, and it will remain such, not only because of its powerful military but also because of its economy and intellect."

Despite his belligerent tone, in a wide-ranging speech seen by many as laying out his personal manifesto, the former KGB spy rejected claims that the world has embarked upon a new Cold War. This is a man we would do well not to alienate.

Star Wars

A week ago, I reported on the financial crisis facing Europe's bid to compete with America's Global Positioning System, the Galileo project. As expected, in its bid to make the continent the world's mightiest commercial and military empire, the European Commission now looks set to fund the ailing satellite navigation system.

Ever one step ahead in this battle for control of the skies, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has today announced in Moscow that America will not allow Russia to prevent it from extending its missile defence shield into Eastern Europe. However, Washington still needs Russia's support if it is going to maintain international pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme.

So, we have Europe and America determined to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear programme, but slowly heading for conflict over Europe's potential military independence. Meanwhile, their mutual rival Russia is supplying the Islamic Republic with nuclear fuel and has today agreed to build a nuclear research centre in Burma—another pariah state.

Clearly seeing an opportunity to reassert its claim to be a superpower, Russia is now threatening to pull out of its 1987 treaty with the United States banning intermediate range nuclear forces and to end its commitments to force reductions under the Treaty on Conventional Weapons. So, when Mr Putin criticises the US for its "almost uncontained hyper use of military force" around the world and accuses it of making the world a more dangerous place, observers are surely right to talk of a new Cold War era dawning.

The question is, given this global struggle for superpower status between Europe, America, Russia, and emerging powers in the Middle East and Asia, what should Britain's role be in the new wargame? I invite your suggestions in the comments.

Influencing Iran

Now that the Iran hostage drama has all but been forgotten and while we wait for the next escalation in the nuclear standoff, we are clearly in a period of quiet diplomacy. The question is, who is best placed to achieve possible results? Or, coming at the query another way, which global power is Iran's closest trading partner?

I'll give you a clue: Think about Britain. We are America's largest trading partner, as are they ours. That is reflective of the importance and, historically at least, the mutual influence between ourselves and our trans-Atlantic cousins.

So, what of Iran? A neighbouring Islamic oil-rich state, perhaps? Another Persian or Shi'a Muslim ally? Or one of the rapidly developing, oil-hungry countries in the far-east?

No – the European Union, accounting for more than a third of total market share and 44% of Iran's imports.

Some argue that the EU is therefore uniquely in a position to restrict Iranian access to nuclear technology and precision machinery through a trade embargo. However, this ignores certain other facts, such as that Iran's oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia and Iran last year purchased around one billion pounds worth of goods from Britain. If Europe doesn't buy from Iran, then countries such as China will quickly snap up the spare oil capacity and Pakistan the spare gas capacity, while others like Russia will be more than happy to sell Iran the equipment and expertise it seeks – the only economy that will be damaged by sanctions will be ours.

There is, however, another possibility. Coming yet another way at our original question about who is best placed to achieve possible diplomatic results, which global power has greatest potential to increase their trade with Iran?

The answer to that is, of course, America.

The United States has imposed a full trade embargo on Iran since 1995, but in reality to little effect as the Iranians have been able to find alternative markets elsewhere. If the White House were to adopt the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and lift economic sanctions against the theocratic regime, they would raise living standards among the millions of Iranian citizens who were persuaded at their last presidential elections to give up on the seemingly slow progress of the reformists and to take a chance on the "man of the people." By developing trade links with the Islamic republic, America would be improving the lives of ordinary Iranians, fomenting popular pressure for political freedom to match their newly-gained economic liberties. At some point, however, the time for such a long-sighted approach to overcome the current impasse will run short.

America has it within its power to undermine the mullahs' regime and promote democratic reform. Whether it chooses to exercise that power could have global ramifications for us all in the coming years.

Nuclear Fall Out

I see Deputy Leader of the Commons, Labour's Nigel Griffiths is the latest to quit the Government in protest over plans to extend the life of Trident (cf. Saturday's Beyond Trident post).

Beyond Trident

Just this morning, while out canvassing ahead of May's local elections (is there any other way to spend a sunny Saturday morning?!), I was discussing the pros and cons of Britain maintaining its own nuclear defence with a very traditional Conservative voter who felt that we have been reduced to a "small minnow" in the global pond. Interesting, then, to come home to the news that Labour MP Jim Devine has announced that he will resign as a ministerial aide in protest over Wednesday's Commons vote on replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system.

However, as I wrote in The Times last November, the global threat that filled the ideological vacuum left after Communism's collapse - namely, Islamism - is one that the world's leaders are still only now beginning to realise we face. Moreover, today's threat is even more poisonous than was Communism as it taps into the deeper roots of God and religion.

It is precisely because the security threat this presents every nation in the world is so very different to anything that we have faced before and, further, because we no more know what threats we may face two decades from now than we could have predicted two decades ago those we now confront that extending the life of Trident is crucial for both our country's future defence and the contribution that we can yet make to security throughout the world.