With all the warmongering talk about Iran as a threat to the West (for a more sceptical view see here), we forget which Muslim states in the decades to come are likely to pose a threat to the independence, if not the very existence, of some western countries, specifically in Southern and South Eastern Europe.
The population of North Africa is increasing fast, while that of Europe ages and declines, so changing the balance of power in the Mediterranean. Mass immigration from the Maghreb into Spain, France and Italy is likely to increase the political influence of Algeria and Morocco in Southern Europe, with more than merely cultural effects. A country like Morocco might be tempted to intervene in Spain if any religious tensions should flare up; or a nuclear-armed (with Pakistani help) Algeria might feel impelled to support Muslim groups in ethno-religious conflicts inside French territory. This conflict could be in the form of rioting or simply non-violent agitation by Muslims for more civil rights, special privileges or concessions to Islamic culture. Ethnic tensions in Europe will as likely to worsen relations between Europe and the Maghreb rather than bring cultures and countries together.
In the Balkans, a populous, industrialised Turkey is likely to extend its influence over weak and sparsely populated Balkan states. The Turkish government seems moderate, but quite understandably it will pursue Turkish self-interest. The old dictum, powers will be powers, applies. A Bulgarian think-tank predicts how Turkish accession will lead to unrestricted turkish immigration overwhelming ethnic Bulgarians; and the Turks will extend their influence in Europe. The US Government, the British Conservatives (in thrall to US foreign policy objectives) as well most neo-conservatives and liberals believe that Turkey can become a bulwark against the supposed main threats to the East, which are geographically more distant from Europe. Even without EU Accession, it has to be said, Turkish influence can only increase; but polite containment of Turkey rather than integration with it will be more attractive to central and Eastern Europeans.
Iran is a long way from Europe. In the days of the Ottoman Empire, Persia acted as a second front for the Ottoman Empire, forcing the Turks to divert resources away from Europe and perhaps saving central Europe from conquest. This dynamic may reassert itself. Iran is likely to be contained by Sunni countries in the Middle East and won't be in a position to pose an existential threat to Israel. The main threat to the Israeli state is demographic - from the Palestinian Arabs in a greater Israel; or even in a 1948-borders Israel.
Iran also has militarised, Sunni Pakistan as a neighbour and relations between the two countries remain strained, according to the neo-conservative Middle East Quarterly. Asia Times reports that Border tensions continue. As a result, Iran is likely to maintain good relations with India in order to contain the Pakistani threat, which includes the spectre of the Sunni bomb. India's rivalry with China will mean that India will be friendly to the West; Pakistan's rivalry with India will mean that it relies more on China, although a Uighur insurgency might distract Pakistan from its strategic interest. Iran again will have interests in common with Europe and America, suggesting a cold alliance. Shia Islam is not likely to be a destabilising ideology for the West in the way that Saudi Wahabiism is.
Friday, 18 September 2009
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Norwich by-election
I haven't heard much on the by-election in the media over the last couple of weeks - one Daily Politics (lunchtime appearance). Question Time was in Norwich last night, but the polls had already closed by then. The two recent national opinion polls, giving the tories 40%+, make it look like the Tories are unstoppable; but 15% of decided voters are other parties while undecideds are not even counted. So these opinion polls overestimate the main parties' vote, including the Conservatives. They become a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially in a first-past-the-post system, with the electorate concluding that the fringe parties are not worth voting for. The polls influence future votes.
If David Cameron's party win well, they can claim to have the momentum to assume government next year; UKIP, the libertarian party and the rest will be cast as also-rans, a wasted vote. The Tories' strategy relies on right-wing voters feeling they have nowhere to go, a captive electorate. This lack of exposure for the other parties will help them close the election down.
The media's tendency to concentrate on the main parties and ignore the fringe parties is good for established politics. Given the disgusting consensus on many issues between the three main parties, which now seems to extend to the pointless war in Afghanistan (all three leaders say the war is worth fighting, some debate on how many helicopters), this impoverishes debate considerably.
I doubt if the tories would be quietly planning to privatise the post office if they had to justify their proposal in opposition to a range of other populist parties. Instead our post office is left to the tender mercies of Peter Mandelson and Ken Clarke, who represent the same discredited consensus that talked unrestrained free markets and gave us the bank bailouts. Repeatedly, three parties agree broadly on the big issues. They are basically saying, "There is no other reasonable or moderation stance on these issues", which is really a cover for a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum: "you can disagree but you have no other options."
There has been so much talk about increased choice and competition over the last few decades. But it doesn't apply to politics, which is restricted to a narrow range of approved platforms. If you only allowed three salesman access to the customer, and made it more difficult for the others, this would be seen as a scandal. But that's what happens with the three-party system. If fringe parties were given media space to argue for their platforms, the main parties find it a lot harder to close down the debate.
If David Cameron's party win well, they can claim to have the momentum to assume government next year; UKIP, the libertarian party and the rest will be cast as also-rans, a wasted vote. The Tories' strategy relies on right-wing voters feeling they have nowhere to go, a captive electorate. This lack of exposure for the other parties will help them close the election down.
The media's tendency to concentrate on the main parties and ignore the fringe parties is good for established politics. Given the disgusting consensus on many issues between the three main parties, which now seems to extend to the pointless war in Afghanistan (all three leaders say the war is worth fighting, some debate on how many helicopters), this impoverishes debate considerably.
I doubt if the tories would be quietly planning to privatise the post office if they had to justify their proposal in opposition to a range of other populist parties. Instead our post office is left to the tender mercies of Peter Mandelson and Ken Clarke, who represent the same discredited consensus that talked unrestrained free markets and gave us the bank bailouts. Repeatedly, three parties agree broadly on the big issues. They are basically saying, "There is no other reasonable or moderation stance on these issues", which is really a cover for a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum: "you can disagree but you have no other options."
There has been so much talk about increased choice and competition over the last few decades. But it doesn't apply to politics, which is restricted to a narrow range of approved platforms. If you only allowed three salesman access to the customer, and made it more difficult for the others, this would be seen as a scandal. But that's what happens with the three-party system. If fringe parties were given media space to argue for their platforms, the main parties find it a lot harder to close down the debate.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Afghanistan: how western aid is repeating Russian mistakes
An article on how Russian development policy in 1980's Afghanistan looks a lot like what the West is doing now, written Paul Robinson, an academic working on International affairs at the University of Ottawa.
See the American Conservative website .
It is not just that the West is giving aid money to a corrupt government; but that the top-down aid approach increases corruption, makes the government unaccountable, and the development isn't matched to the economic or social conditions in Afghanistan.
See the American Conservative website .
It is not just that the West is giving aid money to a corrupt government; but that the top-down aid approach increases corruption, makes the government unaccountable, and the development isn't matched to the economic or social conditions in Afghanistan.
Friday, 10 July 2009
More British deaths in Afghanistan
Eight more soldiers died today, part of an offensive operation with the Americans. The consequence of the increase in casualties is that politicians can't ignore this far-away war any longer. The Media are now covering the story and the parties have to declare their position, beyond these formulaic declarations of sorrow.
Everyone I talk to thinks it a disgrace that soldiers should be sent to war without being properly resourced. The whole country sees it as a scandal, and whether people believe the war is justified or not, they want the troops to be protected. What is also scandalous is how the politicians had contrived not to discuss the issue until last week.
It is especially scandalous that the Conservatives have been quiet because their leadership is very much in favour of intervention. But Cameron stayed quiet. It took the Anti-war Liberal Democrat party to break the silence. If the Conservatives are supposed to competing on the same ground in the next election, then Clegg wins on this. Clegg calls himself a liberal interventionist, which seems to be a break from the previous leadership.
In many ways, Afghanistan is a liberal war: people like Harman are understandably horrified by the way the Taliban coerce women. But, I don't see how we can supplant an entire culture, without coercion; we are meant to be on the side of the people, not against them. Liberals don't like solutions based around ethnic differences, but Afghanistan itself is so fragmented that a weak central state with iranian, pakistani/pashtun, uzbecki spheres of influence, all based on ethnic ties, would probably be the most stable solution. This would be more effective than top-down economic development (which is likely to be misdirected anyway).
This war is not like the cold war, where scepticism was confined to left-wingers. Ordinary, strongly patriotic people will say that the soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place. The government say candidly that the soldiers are in Afghanistan to protect us from Terrorism, Gordon Brown today and Harriet Harman in Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday. But beyond the assertion that Afghanistan is the cradle of terrorism, it is never explained how terrorists can bomb British cities from thousands of miles away or how you can stop someone from Britain who hasn't been to Afghanistan from committing a terrorist act. Our presence there is just as likely to provoke a terrorist attack as stope one.
Those thinkers who believe the war is a good thing are talking about a long war. This is in spite of our indebtedness and general economic weakness. This under-resourced, politically naive war is leading to the deaths of British soliders, with no end in sight.
Everyone I talk to thinks it a disgrace that soldiers should be sent to war without being properly resourced. The whole country sees it as a scandal, and whether people believe the war is justified or not, they want the troops to be protected. What is also scandalous is how the politicians had contrived not to discuss the issue until last week.
It is especially scandalous that the Conservatives have been quiet because their leadership is very much in favour of intervention. But Cameron stayed quiet. It took the Anti-war Liberal Democrat party to break the silence. If the Conservatives are supposed to competing on the same ground in the next election, then Clegg wins on this. Clegg calls himself a liberal interventionist, which seems to be a break from the previous leadership.
In many ways, Afghanistan is a liberal war: people like Harman are understandably horrified by the way the Taliban coerce women. But, I don't see how we can supplant an entire culture, without coercion; we are meant to be on the side of the people, not against them. Liberals don't like solutions based around ethnic differences, but Afghanistan itself is so fragmented that a weak central state with iranian, pakistani/pashtun, uzbecki spheres of influence, all based on ethnic ties, would probably be the most stable solution. This would be more effective than top-down economic development (which is likely to be misdirected anyway).
This war is not like the cold war, where scepticism was confined to left-wingers. Ordinary, strongly patriotic people will say that the soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place. The government say candidly that the soldiers are in Afghanistan to protect us from Terrorism, Gordon Brown today and Harriet Harman in Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday. But beyond the assertion that Afghanistan is the cradle of terrorism, it is never explained how terrorists can bomb British cities from thousands of miles away or how you can stop someone from Britain who hasn't been to Afghanistan from committing a terrorist act. Our presence there is just as likely to provoke a terrorist attack as stope one.
Those thinkers who believe the war is a good thing are talking about a long war. This is in spite of our indebtedness and general economic weakness. This under-resourced, politically naive war is leading to the deaths of British soliders, with no end in sight.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
The London Times and Israeli disinformation
According to the former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, The Times story of Saudi Arabia colluding in an Israeli strike is a false story, planted by Mossad.
His comments are here on the American Conservative blog.
Giraldi is well-connected enough to know. In 2005 Giraldi broke the story that Dick Cheney ordered plans to attack Iran in response to a large-scale terrorist attack, irrespective of whether Iran was involved.
Based also on Biden's comments that the US won't stand in Israel's way, he draws the conclusion also that the US administration are ratcheting up the pressure on Iran.
To be fair to the Times, the wider reflection to make here is that a large proportion of "News" stories in the papers are the result of a PR, leaks or other agendas. Most news is propaganda and all of the newspapers are conduits for misinformation.
His comments are here on the American Conservative blog.
Giraldi is well-connected enough to know. In 2005 Giraldi broke the story that Dick Cheney ordered plans to attack Iran in response to a large-scale terrorist attack, irrespective of whether Iran was involved.
Based also on Biden's comments that the US won't stand in Israel's way, he draws the conclusion also that the US administration are ratcheting up the pressure on Iran.
To be fair to the Times, the wider reflection to make here is that a large proportion of "News" stories in the papers are the result of a PR, leaks or other agendas. Most news is propaganda and all of the newspapers are conduits for misinformation.
Saturday, 4 July 2009
more on Obama
Another comment on the relative merits of Obama and McCain from the Larison blog on TAC.
Also, a useful article linked from The American Conservative on IBD about the effects on business of the Obama plans.
Also, a useful article linked from The American Conservative on IBD about the effects on business of the Obama plans.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Obama and Iran
"Bomb Iran Bomb Bomb Bomb", joked Senator John McCain to the tune of the Beach Boy song, in the early days of the presidential campaign. Luckily for the world he is still Senator John McCain and not President McCain. But imagine how "Bomb Iran" from a presidential candidate sounded to the Iranians.
The Republicans were the best reason to hope for an Obama victory; or at least to view Obama as the lesser of two evils if you couldn't quite stomach the vacuity of the "Change" message, the the Blair-like (Cameron-like) contempt for the electorate that campaigning on something as non-specific as "Change" implies.
Much of what Obama has been doing on the home front has been awful: Bailout II, the stimulus, massive health care reforms, climate change; but generally on foreign policy, Obama has been an improvement. He has at least reduced the numbers of irreconciliable enemies of the free world. Reaching out to Cuba, Venezuala, Russia, especially Russia, that is good. On Iran too, he has been restrained, but is close to a lone voice. Congress voted to condemn the Iranians, with only one representative dissenting, the great Ron Paul. So politically it will be difficult.
Obama has been brave to resist calls to get heavy with Iran, but even in the first response, there was some ambiguity. Talk of "universal values" of democracy is close to neo-con/liberal interventionist talk, to the Iranians it would have still sounded like meddling, and the fear is that the realist foreign policy of "world citizen" Obama would collapse if regimes like Iran don't pass the values test. Sure enough, when the pressure gets tough, his rhetoric gets tough too. The neo-cons want the creedal nation to fight a messianic war for western democracy, and they can base their call to arms on the assumptions of the dominant liberal ideology.
As for an improvement in Iran if Moussavi wins, well look how empty the colour revolutions of Ukraine and Georgia ended up being. So don't hold your breath. Embracing western-led reforms led to terrible deprivation and disorder for Russia and Eastern Europe.
Meanwhile the American economy is heading for a lot more trouble according to Peter Schiff. It will take economic collapse to tame American, and western, hubris.
The Republicans were the best reason to hope for an Obama victory; or at least to view Obama as the lesser of two evils if you couldn't quite stomach the vacuity of the "Change" message, the the Blair-like (Cameron-like) contempt for the electorate that campaigning on something as non-specific as "Change" implies.
Much of what Obama has been doing on the home front has been awful: Bailout II, the stimulus, massive health care reforms, climate change; but generally on foreign policy, Obama has been an improvement. He has at least reduced the numbers of irreconciliable enemies of the free world. Reaching out to Cuba, Venezuala, Russia, especially Russia, that is good. On Iran too, he has been restrained, but is close to a lone voice. Congress voted to condemn the Iranians, with only one representative dissenting, the great Ron Paul. So politically it will be difficult.
Obama has been brave to resist calls to get heavy with Iran, but even in the first response, there was some ambiguity. Talk of "universal values" of democracy is close to neo-con/liberal interventionist talk, to the Iranians it would have still sounded like meddling, and the fear is that the realist foreign policy of "world citizen" Obama would collapse if regimes like Iran don't pass the values test. Sure enough, when the pressure gets tough, his rhetoric gets tough too. The neo-cons want the creedal nation to fight a messianic war for western democracy, and they can base their call to arms on the assumptions of the dominant liberal ideology.
As for an improvement in Iran if Moussavi wins, well look how empty the colour revolutions of Ukraine and Georgia ended up being. So don't hold your breath. Embracing western-led reforms led to terrible deprivation and disorder for Russia and Eastern Europe.
Meanwhile the American economy is heading for a lot more trouble according to Peter Schiff. It will take economic collapse to tame American, and western, hubris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
