by Mark Weston | Feb 16, 2009 | Africa, Conflict and security
The US’s new Africa Command (AFRICOM) has made a promising start: its strategic advice to the Ugandan army for its recent offensive against the Lord’s Resistance Army not only failed to defeat the rebels, but resulted in the deaths of over 900 civilians.
AFRICOM – “the culmination of a ten-year thought process within the Department of Defense” – was set up, according to its website, to “help African nations, the African Union and the regional economic communities succeed.” A laudable goal – no doubt drawing on the US army’s great success in helping communities in Iraq and Afghanistan to thrive. “The designers of U.S. Africa Command,” they say, “clearly understood the relationships between security, development, diplomacy and prosperity in Africa.”
All good stuff. So what does AFRICOM choose as one of its first missions? A military operation against a guerrilla army that has eluded the Ugandan government for decades and has a long history of murdering innocent civilians in reprisal attacks. The US contributed intelligence (yes, really), advice and $1m in fuel.
When the operation failed, of course, and the rebels scattered, they punished local communities. Strangely, despite its claim to understand the links between development and security, and to “incorporate humanitarian organisations” in its activities, AFRICOM didn’t think to advise its Ugandan and Congolese partners, or UN peacekeepers, to protect civilians. Medecins Sans Frontieres says UN peacekeepers in Congo did nothing to protect people, while the UN says it doesn’t have the resources to do so. As Richard noted last week, some communities were able to defend themselves, though without any help from AFRICOM or its partners. But many couldn’t.
A UN official said the operation was as effective as throwing a rock at a hive of bees. Given that civilians’ security is a crucial prerequisite to their development, which in turn is crucial for both stemming the flow of recruits to the LRA and increasing communities’ resilience against it, it would appear AFRICOM’s leaders would benefit from going back to school and having a closer look at those links between development and security, rather than just throwing force at the problem.
by Alex Evans | Feb 16, 2009 | What we're watching
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfbOyw3CT6A[/youtube]
by Jules Evans | Feb 15, 2009 | Economics and development, Europe and Central Asia
One of the biggest risks for the global economy right now is Ukraine. The country’s currency is rapidly depreciating, which is causing serious trouble for the foreign banks who own a majority of the financial sector.
The foreign banks, led by names like Raiffeisen, Unicredit and BNP Paribas, have piled into Ukraine ever since the Orange Revolution in 2006, on the bet that Ukraine would move ever closer to the EU, and eventually accede.
Instead, the government has been riven with in-fighting ever since that revolution, and really the country has barely had a government for the last three years.
Banks are starting to collapse – this week, the ninth biggest bank, Nadra Bank, was nationalised. If the currency depreciates further and corporates and consumers default on their debt, big European banks could take a major hit.
Raiffeisen, for example, has several billion euros invested in Ukraine, where it owns the second biggest bank. Unicredit owns the fourth biggest bank, and BNP Paribas owns the fifth. OTP, Hungary’s biggest bank, also owns a top ten bank there. Russian banks also have alot invested there.
If Ukraine goes under, it could lead to one of the big Austrian banks, such as Raiffeisen or Bank Austria (owned by Unicredit) going under as well, which would be disastrous for eastern Europe, where Raiffeisen and Unicredit own large chunks of countries’ banking sectors.
That’s why the Austrian finance minister, Josef Proll, has been urging the EU to support Ukraine with more emergency funds, to supplement the $16bn the country received from the IMF.
The IMF has frozen that money at the moment, because Ukraine’s PM, Yulia Timoshenko, has refused to cut government spending. Her finance minister resigned because of this last week.
Timoshenko now appears to be trying to get a bail-out from Russia as well, and is probably trying to play EU and the West off against each other to get money.
by Daniel Korski | Feb 13, 2009 | Cooperation and coherence, East Asia and Pacific
So Sri Lanka has now rejected Gordon Brown’s appointment of Des Browne as a special envoy to the island. President Mahinda Rajapaksa said the appointment was “unhelpful” and was made without consulting his government. A foreign ministry statement said the appointment was tantamount to an “intrusion of Sri Lanka’s internal affairs”.
No 10 have played this down, saying that they were still speaking to the Sri Lankan government about Browne’s exact role. But from Colombo Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama warned of “major repercussions” for relations with Britain over the nomination and said “there is no further discussion with London on the matter.”
Before this incident, the appointment of a Sri Lanka envoy only seemed poorly through-out. Now it looks downright humiliating for the Prime Minister who clearly wanted to make up for sacking his Scottish colleague.
What could have happened? There are a number of options. Perhaps No 10 did not check the appointment with the Sri Lankan government. But if true, this seems negligible beyond belief. Perhaps the Foreign Office did check, but the Sri Lankans changed their minds, or did not communicate as forcefully as they should have that they did not want the appointment. That is what happened over Paddy Ashdown’s UN appointment in Kabul. The final option is that Des Browne, who was quite poorly treated by the PM, was about to blow, spilling the beans on Brown’s weaknesses. To stop this, the PM may have panicked, and offered Browne something that was not really his to offer.
Either way, the non-appointment does not put Brown in the best of lights.
by Jules Evans | Feb 13, 2009 | Influence and networks
Last month saw the launch of several new online initiatives by Labour, as it desperately tries to find a strategy to beat the Tories in the coming election.
John Prescott, who is apparently a star on Twitter (I find this hard to believe but that’s what they say), is writing a new blog, called www.gofourth.co.uk , so called because that’s where Labour will end up being placed in the next election, ha ha. Apparently Alaister Campbell is also involved in the website, somehow…
In the same month, Derek Draper, who briefly showed an interest in psychotherapy but now appears to be a full-time party apparatchik, launched a site called LabourList, which will try to be the same sort of ‘indepenent grass roots website’ as the influential www.conservativehome.com
The Tories have widely mocked these initiatives, saying the government just doesn’t get the net – it is de-centralised, off-message and spontaneous, and therefore completely different to the Alaister Campbell model of spinning and bullying the press corps. The fact that LabourList is run by Peter Mandelson’s former assistant is testament to how much Labour doesn’t get it, and how worn out the grass roots Left is in the UK (just read New Statesman if you’re in any doubt).
That much is said, with the accompaniment of a great gangsta beat, by Raplog, a blogger who’s declared aim is to ‘bring some hip hop panache to political blogging’:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqBFF6TDI8I’>watch?v=cqBFF6TDI8I[/youtube]
