The Arab Spring is dead. Long live Assad?

Freedom was their cry and freedom is what they demanded. Nation upon nation saw regimes fall across the Arab world as dynastic dictators left following a surging rally for democracy. Sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East, tyrants fell both peacefully and bloodily. Hosni Mubarak’s thirty-year reign fell following a long stand-off with young and old Egyptians, whilst Colonel Gadaffi’s 42-year-old rule ended bloodily after an intervention by NATO in Libya’s short, yet bitter civil war. The tide of democracy appeared to emerging across nations that for so long had suffered hardship and poverty. Young and educated Arabs wanted to be part of fledgling democracies with real futures. Not trapped in nations where human rights, basic amenities and jobs are hard to come by. Surely the next to fall would be the House of Assad?

Two years have passed since the Syrian uprising began and what has fast developed into the region’s bloodiest civil war. The death toll is estimated to be around 70,000. More than half a million refugees have escaped into neighbouring Jordan. More worryingly, following the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, President Assad appears to show no intent in relenting. The West appears hapless in deciding whether intervention would not only work, but whether it is desirable.

The city of Homs.

The problem for the West remains political, moral and straightforward realism. Politically, the inability for likely intervening nations like the US and UK have been blocked in the UN by Syria’s long term allies China and most notably Russia. The Chinese feel uncomfortable condoning any external upheaval when they have their own dissidents within Tibet and Xinjiang province, any support may simply lead to calls for greater autonomy within its own borders. Russia, on the other hand, has felt the full force of international criticism and indignation of supporting a murderous regime. Yet for Russia, it is far more complicated. Not only, like China, have they had difficulties with its own ethnic groups, most noticeably in the Caucuses, but more fundamentally, Syria has been one of the staunchest and longest serving allies in the region. As a client of Russian military hardware, as well as providing a Mediterranean port for the Russian fleet, why would President Putin feel obliged to cave into Western demands when it would seriously lose out?

Morally, the problem remains more painful. When I last wrote about Syria, the estimation of deaths was around 25,000 mark. Humanitarian reports remain bleak. Women and children are destitute. President Assad remains intent on powering through what he believes to be external forces intruding in Syria’s internal affairs. Two years into the war and it now appears that Assad is not looking for an escape route. If half a million or more die, it is cost he is willing to face. There the problem lies for the West. Within eight months, the death toll has almost quadrupled. It has already dithered since the fighting began and now it finds itself with a growing casualty list and a more radical Islamic opponent. With evidence of chemical weapons now emerging – the so-called red line before intervention, ordinary Syrians killed in the crossfire and the possibility of a less amenable successor to Bashar Al-Assad. They have seen that post-Gadaffi; Libya is dealing with external enemies both within and outside its borders in Mali and Algeria, most notably Al-Qaeda. An intervention in Syria may simply lead to a full-scale war across the whole Middle East.

Bashar al-Assad: Defiant

Finally, the straightforward realism is thus: if the rebels cannot be trusted and America has no real appetite to intervene then what is likely to happen to Syria? The two most important questions are whether Russia is willing to commit its support both diplomatically and militarily. If an intervention appears unlikely then, Vladimir Putin will simply continue with its support. Secondly, how far is Israel willing to sit on the sidelines? Only this weekend there were reports of attacks by the Israeli Defence Force within Syria following suggestions that Hezbollah had obtained chemical weapons. With the conflict on its doorstep and Al Qaeda operating freely within some of its towns and cities, it is hard to foresee the Israeli military standing down.

Politicians and diplomats are fully aware of the risks of non-intervention. The memory of Srebrenica and Rwanda remain particularly vivid within the UN and NATO. Yet, perhaps the time has passed for intervention. The Arab Spring is dead. As it stands, who knows what will happen.

9/11 - America's nightmare

If history is a subject about remembering the names of dead kings and queens and memorising important dates, then September 11th, 9/11, is the most memorable of them all. On that, beautiful Tuesday morning in downtown Manhattan, where clear blue skies and naked sunshine shone upon the east coast metropolis, the events of that fateful day, that left the whole world aghast, turned the vivid blue sky to a choking, black fog. The television news replaying footage like an advertisement, looping pictures of horror and awe. Beneath, within the panic, saw the remnants of a European city, razed to the ground by Allied bombing; a grey haze and tampered soul. Yet this was not just a mass grave, this was the sowing of seeds for a nightmare that was about to unfold, one that would make us all victims. Ten years on, the drama appears to have quelled. The protagonists have been written out of the script. George W. Bush, then US President, is now retired and has already written his memoirs and Osama bin Laden, the poetic Saudi and Al-Qaeda leader, met his end this year in his compound in Pakistan. A decade later, as the world relives the tales of bravery and loss from loved ones and observers, we have a clearer picture of the world we now live in and what 9/11 experience taught us all and inevitably the history books.

America’s response and subsequent combat mission in Afghanistan was permitted by the UN and was backed by 41 different countries, who all provided troops to bring down the Taliban in Afghanistan. Nearly ten years after the Cold War had ended and involved in fewer armed conflicts, this was an opportunity for the world to see the firepower of the American military. Cruise missiles, stealth bombers and futuristic weapons all contributed to the downfall of the Taliban regime and the liberation of Kabul in late 2001. This was a victory for the men and women who had lost their lives in the towers, the Pentagon and the many who had tackled the would be suicide bombers in Pennsylvania. Yet, all the while Mr Bin Laden managed to cross the border and live safely in neighbouring Pakistan.

Perhaps the country that has suffered the most subsequently is Pakistan. None of the men that flew the planes into the towers were Pakistani nationals. Before 9/11 there had been only one suicide attack incident, since 9/11 there have been hundreds. The Pakistani state has become a lot weaker and many of the moderates have been succeeded by Islamists who despise the values of the West and America. Much of the aid given to the Pakistani state has been swallowed up by the military, leaving the education budget with a miserly 2%. Most military analysts say that the problem now lies in east of Afghanistan, in Pakistan. NATO troops will never be able to defeat the Taleban because its roots are tribal and local, just like the British Government could never defeat the IRA. The notion of state building in Afghanistan is impractical because the issues that need addressing are political. When NATO troops finally leave, will Afghani troops be capable of defending their country or will the militants from Pakistan be waiting in anticipation? The war planning was nonexistent and improvised as the battles ensued.

Not since Pearl Harbour had America been attacked so unexpectedly and spectacularly. As intelligence experts searched for answers, the stories of heroism and selflessness emerged from the dust. No one can deny America’s anger and certainly, its self-contemplation of what had just happened; the people who had died were casualties, just like other people who had died in bombings or hijackings over the years. Yet to die ‘at’ 9/11 made someone more exceptional than for someone to die ‘on’ September 11. The circumstances were horrific, but it blazed a trail of American exceptionalism that was ultimately toxic. They weren’t just killing and targeting Americans, they were killing and targeting America itself.

This led to the Bush Administration, acting with impunity in Iraq, without a second resolution from the UN Security Council because this was a war for freedom and democracy. The CIA conducted the rendition and torture of foreign nationals in Guantanamo Bay and other countries. It was a foreign policy based on a doctrine not the economics, so as Americans enjoyed further tax breaks and the extension of social security, the country’s foreign adventures were paid on its credit card (the Bank of China had the lowest interest repayments). It is inconceivable based on today’s sluggish American economy and deficit that it would even consider intervening in countries with despotic regimes such as Syria or Iran.

9/11 was a horrendous day for the people of New York but it now is a part of what it means to be a New Yorker. It was the first event that the globalised world witnessed and suffered. We all are subject to stricter security measures in airports and the rise of CCTV in our towns and cities. We were brought together by the loss but it did a great deal of harm to the global communities. Suspicion and contempt for innocent people has only made some situations worse. September 11th was a dark day and forever the empty chair will always remind families at holidays and celebrations. Yet we should not forget the other victims and the how it really changed the world forever.

Next stop, Mugabe.

Lord Palmerston, one of Britain’s most influential Foreign Secretaries in the nineteenth century is often remembered for his famous dictum:

“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

This is true of any nation. The US delegation that visited Mao’s China in 1972 was treading on dangerous ground. History Professor David Reynolds from the University of Cambridge said at the time it is like comparing ‘America opening talks with Al Qaeda’. Every story has a context and President Richard Nixon was pursuing a policy of containment from Soviet influence with his mandarin Henry Kissinger. China, under the insular rule of Chairman Mao, were political pariahs. They had contributed in World War 2 to help defeat Imperial Japan, but several years later (after the Mao’s succession) sent forces against the West on the Korean peninsula. The US decision to open talks was made easier by the Ussuri River conflict agaisnt the USSR three years previously. Communist China and Soviet Russia were now sworn enemies. This not only allowed the US to start talks with China, particularly about containing the Vietnam War but it opened up a diplomacy that would transform the two nations economically.

It is the same within the Middle East. The peace treaty between Israel and Egypt was transformative, after decades of war, it showed the ability to negotiate over trade and ultimately co-exist. This asks the question of Britain and whether it is willing or able to move on and talk to the wasp’s nest in the loft, Zimbabwe and its belligerent and ailing leader Robert Mugabe.

British history in Africa is grey. Comparing it to other nations and their empires such as Belgium or Portugal then you could mistake the British for saints. The ‘Scramble for Africa’ saw land divided between other countries with the line of a ruler. Unlike places like India or Hong Kong where institutions were laid down, a loose form of indirect rule was placed with strong tribal leaders to control affairs on site, whilst decisions were made from the Colonial Office in Whitehall.

The 1960s and the ‘winds of change’ speech uttered by PM Harold MacMillan saw swathes of British Africa declare independence; The Gold Coast, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. All these nations elected their own governments and power was truly handed over from London. Yet the British exit from Rhodesia did not change much in terms of politics. Ian Smith, a white militant, took charge and retained the apartheid system that subjugated Black Rhodesians. The guerrilla war that ensued finally ended in 1979 through the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement in London that ended Smith’s unilateral declaration of independence. It also introduced to the world the wily and implacable Robert Gabriel Mugabe, a product of the British Colonial system.

Why does Mugabe in particular revile the British establishment? Zimbabwe has a shocking human rights record; but what of the genocide in Darfur or the habitual rape of women and children in DR Congo? Freedom of the press – it is hardly a model system but compared to Eritrea. The dispute over land distribution is probably worse in neighbouring South Africa. If Mugabe is going to win an Oscar then it will be for his economic mismanagement, but the picture is often presented more fiendish than it is in comparison. Yet Zimbabwe, behind Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, still features highly for UK press concentration. It ultimately boiled down to the fact that Mugabe, with his agile political skills and connivance, managed to defeat the British who left an Africa unfavourably for black Africans.

Yet despite his brazenness and ferocity, Mugabe still admires his ‘mother country’. He is known to enjoy afternoon tea and like Idi Amin, the Ugandan tyrant, wistfully respects the Queen and the Royal Family. Travel bans to the EU and US not only prevented his wife from trips to Harrods but separated him from the Establishment. This of course is entirely different to his revulsion towards the British Government, they only made things worse.

This is a man that oversaw an operation translated from Shona (the majority ethnic language) meaning ‘drive out the filth’ that saw bulldozers smash through homes of voters of the MDC (now in government with Mugabe’s Zanu PF) and Zimbabwe’s other ethnic group. This is a man that caused great instability across the whole of Southern Africa. A Black African killing black Africans, driving millions of refugees into neighbouring countries and overseeing the disastrous appropriation of white farm land to black natives that caused the whole region to suffer economically and without food.

We hear rumours that Mr Mugabe, now 87, is terminally ill with prostate cancer, yet still clutching to power. His latest economic policy is to see that all foreign owned enterprises must be have least 51 per cent ‘native’ Zimbabwean investors, a policy that is unsettling big firms such as Barclays Bank. The US and EU sanctions have also seen Mugabe flirt towards the Chinese, trading diamonds for military hardware. With a breakdown in relations between Mugabe and Prime Minster Morgan Tsvangirai the elections scheduled for next year could turn out as farcical and bloody as 2007.

Is this the opportunity for Britain, like Nixon all those years ago, to reach out an olive branch to Mugabe and reset relations? Not only could it possibly heal fractious wounds and generate a new relationship akin to somewhere like Sierra Leone; but it could prevent trouble in the short term. Who is to say that when Mugabe finally releases power (probably through death) that there will not be a power struggle from rapacious generals creating more unrest ; or alternatively a backlash against Mugabe’s ‘vets’ (war veterans who are in effect work as a paramilitary, yet they were probably not old enough to have participated in the independence war.) This would not be akin to an Arab Spring but another Rwanda, with consequences across the region.

Yet both parties are too stubborn to think along these lines. Mugabe will never give way and Britain would see this as submission. However; after its mismanagement since the 1890s and post independence, this could be the Empire’s medicine and redress after decades of mistakes, and ultimately an avenue for economic cooperation as Palmerston said.

Foreign trade: The moral or economic good?

An interesting story bypassed the news agenda last week that could affect British interests in the future. The Chinese vice Premier Li Keqiang visited London and other parts of the EU to sign multi-billion pound trade agreements. He was also trying to rebuild China’s image after the Nobel Peace Prize, where the winner Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese pro-democracy campaigner, was absent through house arrest. China is opening its frontiers to the world and formulating its own foreign policy, proscribed to be undermining the work of many Western Governments insisting on human rights and education, compared to China’s open trade policy with any nation. To what extent can countries like the UK lecture other nations about human rights, yet trade openly with them. Can foreign policy in any way be idealistic or does pragmatism rule the waves. In any instance, self-interest or supranationalism is always going to affect one party.

Anglo-Sino relations have historically been fractured. The Chinese have always felt that British global hegemony had subjugated their proud traditions and the effects of two 19th century opium wars humiliated the Chinese Emperor and its people. These measures saw the frosty handover in 1997 of Hong Kong, in what the British saw as the end of Empire and the Chinese saw as a return to status quo. Almost 15 years after the handover, to what extent can Britain lecture China about human rights, not because of its own colonial past but more the obvious economic and cultural gulf between the two nations. There have been run ins over the past few years; the former Climate Change Secretary and now Labour leader Ed Miliband, angered the Chinese Government over his comments that they had destroyed potential negotiations at the Copenhagen Summit in 2009. Ties were broken off after the UK saw Chinese policy in Zambia as a form of colonialism and then there is the continuous argument that perpetuates over Tibet.

The ultimate goal of foreign policy between countries, effectively nowadays, is to pursue trade and maintain friendly relations. Realists identify with this and the dictum of 19th century Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston is often quoted, “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” Newer forms of diplomacy like the one pursued by American President Woodrow Wilson through the advent of the League of Nations ultimately failed, and failed disastrously because of the self-interest of individual states. The EU and other trading blocs have been more successful because the financial incentives are axiomatic. The pursuit of a moral foreign policy has been unsuccessful because no matter how pressing an issue is, if 5000 defence jobs are lost because of a philosophical foreign secretary then the people will call for his head. The idealistic legacy of William Gladstone perhaps is something to learn from history. A grand social reformer at home, but his dogmatic pursuit of Christian interventionalism saw him fail to convince other nations that it was for the moral good. Something his indefatigable rival Benjamin Disraeli saw from the Opposition benches as naive. Perhaps the belief the world can be shaped by universal truths is a failing itself.

It is therefore in Britain’s interests to be trading with countries like Libya. There is the obvious financial benefit but there is a diplomatic discourse that breeds ideas. Opening economic borders opens groups to the realms of democracy and free speech. China learnt in South Africa, a country with a history of human rights abuses, that it cannot expect South African workers to work in the same conditions as its Chinese counterparts. Britain will continue to increase trade in China, Turkey and Russia but it will be well aware that in the aftermath of recession the pound speaks louder than a human rights lobby.

Wikileaks: The medium is the message.

This week, most people are talking about FIFA and England's unsuccessful World Cup bid. Yet, the other story dominating the news are the leaked US Diplomatic cables published by the website Wikileaks and various news organisations throughout the world.

The story surrounds a member of the US security services who sent a file with over 250,000 documents containing confidential information relating to the State Department's view on foreign policy. The scope is enormous and potentially damaging; but it is interesting to read the thoughts of diplomats and US policy.

As well as the information, the nature of the journalism is interesting, and becoming more prevalent. Instead of Wikileaks just releasing the information straight on to the internet, it gave various news gathering organisations a chance to report on the leaks. The Guardian has apparently spent weeks using journalists and various experts to decipher the best news stories and the implications of various comments. It is similar to the Daily Telegraph's reportage on MPs’ Expenses scandal in 2009.

Many say that such leaks could have political and personal consequences to those involved. Though the newspapers will argue that much of it is in the public interest.

Some have also added that if the Americans are so hurt by the stories, then why was it accessible to thousands of security personnel. Many of the stories are not particularly sensationalist but purely uncloak the perspectives of mandarins and politicians. Perhaps we should be entitled hear them.

It could as a consequence lead to further so called 'post-it-note government', where civil servants prefer righting things down on disposable paper rather than send it by email.

It does ultimately show how powerful modern day communications are and how we no longer have to rely on journalists.

Foreign relations: placing Britain on the map.

Looking at Britain's place in the world, it is easy to think pie in the sky amidst International Relations theory and group our interests as an integral part of Europe, mixed with a 'Special Relationship' with America, not to mention the lasting historical and cultural ties with the Commonwealth. Britain is a nuclear power (albeit under the US's defensive wing), it is the seventh richest country in the world and its soft power is vast in terms of language, law and culture.

Since the Coalition Government came to power there is a renewed sense of soul-searching in terms of the British footprint across the world, through its Foreign Policy and Armed Forces. In times of economic hardship it is becomes apparent that a hefty defence budget is an easy target to slice, particularly when the public are more concerned about health, education and the economy. What can Britain effectively do when it is fighting an isolated and expensive war in Afghanistan and expect major cuts at the MOD?

Britain has Trident, a weapons system that is more appropriate to the Cold War than the modern mobile insurgency that we see today. Yet, if the country were to dispose of this costly yet 'necessary' weapon (figures range between 20 to 130 billion sterling) would we lose our top seat at the UN? Certainly, you could take Tony Blair and New Labour’s opinion that they are needed in an ‘uncertain world’ or the opposite gambit that the money could be spent on more effective defensive equipment like cruise missiles, helicopters or investment in special forces. Ballistic missiles and particularly submarinal warfare is only likely to take place against a superpower, but how likely is that? Would Britain’s voice still continue to be heard if it is willing to send thousands of its troops abroad, even if it doesn’t have tactical nuclear weapons.

The fact the coalition government has decided to ring fence Trident suggests that it is to maintain Britain’s continuing defensive force. This seems utterly stupid when it will have to mothball two Royal Navy aircraft carriers, retain and probably store needless amounts of Typhoon Jets that are too expensive to operate and maintain a combat force of 10 000 fighting a thankless war in Afghanistan. If Trident is necessary then have a debate in Parliament, the Government will win if its case is overriding of any moral or budgetary opposition. The politics of defence procurement is that military contracts and defence budgets can show real muscle flexing but ultimately they are expensive and can be out-dated once contracts are fulfilled. The British tanks in Iraq seem superfluous to today's combat missions.

Defensive reviews and cuts of all natures lead to the same thing: hurting people on the frontline, something very costly to all those men dug-in in Afghanistan. One telling statistic this week was that the U.S. spends £75 billion a year on military intelligence, that’s more than the entire UK defence budget. Spending reviews give no long term answers and only an decision by the government can ultimately decide Britain's future. The Foreign Secretary William Hague is fully aware of the great statesman of the nineteenth century and their policies, maybe it is time for some Disraeli-style pragmatism.