by Richard Gowan | Sep 16, 2010 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia, North America, Off topic
Just occasionally, the sheer scale of the U.S. military system catches you by surprise. Like when you read this:
Col. William Bachand assumed command of the Europe Regional Dental Command in a ceremony Thursday on Nachrichten Kaserne in Heidelberg, Germany.
European Dental Command? A hunt through the internet leads to this story from May:
Six dental technicians were a long way from the comfort an examination room recently as they trudged up and down [ . . . ] unforgiving landscape while participating in the European Dental Command Warrior of the Year competition recently.
And here the prospective warriors are!
Where might their quest lead?
“The winners will go on to compete at DENTCOM for the best warrior of the year. The winner of that will compete for MEDCOM and the winner of that competition goes to Army level, for the best warrior competition,” said Sgt. Tracy Underwood, coordinator of the four-day competition.
OK, you lost me at DENTCOM. Well, at least U.S. forces in Europe have teeth. Most of their NATO allies seem pretty toothless these days…
by Richard Gowan | Sep 16, 2010 | Africa, Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, UK
Having quickly blogged about UK development minister Andrew Mitchell’s speech about conflict and development earlier today, I’ve caught up on responses from NGOs and other bloggers. Opinion divides on fairly predictable lines. Spectator blogger James Forsyth likes the fact that Mitchell linked aid to national security. Saferworld “strongly welcomes” the focus on conflict. But Christian Aid is worried:
A particular danger of viewing aid as a means of furthering our national security is that the government might end up in a cul-de-sac, focusing on a small number of countries of immediate security concern at the expense of DFID’s highly-regarded and effective role of supporting genuine development progress in more than a hundred countries.
I think that this critique is mistaken for two reasons. The first is that it misrepresents Mitchell’s argument. The Secretary of State did link overseas aid to British security (it wasn’t the strongest part of his speech) but a lot of his comments were about how weak countries’ security problems affects their growth:
Tackling conflict overseas is very much in our national interests – even in a time of financial consolidation. But it is also in the interests of the world’s poor. In too many parts of the developing world prosperity will remain a distant dream unless and until we succeed in tackling many of the conflicts that block development. It is surely no coincidence that no fragile country has yet achieved a single Millennium Development Goal, the UN-agreed lodestars for UK development assistance.
More importantly, however, I think that Mitchell’s call to devote more aid to conflict-ridden countries reflects an insight into the future of development policy.
This is very simply that, even if there is still poverty to be tackled in one hundred countries worldwide, Western spending is less and less important in many of them. The long-term future of poverty alleviation lies with Chinese and Indian investors and local entrepreneurs, not to mention new donors like Brazil. Western aid agencies can still do a lot of good, but they will increasingly need to identify the niches in which they can make a real impact, rather than trying to give something to everyone.
So why not prioritize conflict-affected countries? Ignore them, and they will fall even further behind the curve of global development. Focus on them, and it may be possible to support the sorts of institutional and political developments that will put them on the path to growth. Focus on them properly – by ensuring that you have real insights into local political dynamics and a full array of contacts – and you can play an even more significant role. Really understanding and investing in a (relatively) small number of fragile states may have a greater impact than fighting poverty on every possible front.
By highlighting the conflict-development link, therefore, Andrew Mitchell is not just trying to show that aid money helps keep Britain safe. I think that’s he’s also tracing a strategic logic for British, and Western, development aid that will continue to make sense in spite current and future shifts in the global balance of economic power.
by Richard Gowan | Sep 16, 2010 | Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, Global system, North America
The BBC has a good summary of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ latest “Global Views” survey of U.S. public opinion on international affairs. The main headline is that Americans have a strong sense their influence abroad is declining (above).
Digging into the full report, however, I’m taken aback by the picture of American public preferences that emerges. Of the nearly 3,000 people surveyed…
- 54% think the UN needs to be strengthened.
- 64% want a standing UN peacekeeping force.
- 67% want the US to participate in an international treaty on climate change.
- 70% favor American participation in the International Criminal Court.
- 68% want cooperation with China, against just 28% who favor containment.
And the Tea Party is a serious force in this country? In fairness, opinion polls have always suggested that Americans are far more open to international cooperation than day-to-day politics suggests. People may like the idea of the ICC, but they vote about the economy. The Chicago poll emphasizes that all this internationalism is linked to a sense that the U.S. should focus more on domestic issues and less on foreign adventures. Nonetheless, I have a question: where is the internationalist Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin who can harness America’s lust for multilateralism?
by Richard Gowan | Sep 16, 2010 | Africa, Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, Global system, UK
Andrew Mitchell, the British development minister, has just given a well-argued speech about the need to “spend more of the UK’s aid programme in conflict and fragile countries.” I’ll do a more detailed analysis later today. But Mitchell did a first-class job of demolishing the idea – current in parts of Whitehall – that the UK should give up on foreign entanglements and concentrate solely on homeland security:
In short, when it comes to conflict in the developing world, a philosophy of “out of sight out of mind” is simply naive. The indirect consequences of overseas conflict represent a real and present danger, a danger that cannot be dealt with exclusively by counter-terrorist means. A danger that we cannot hope to address by staying at home, bolting the door and drawing down the shutters.
The speech also contains interesting hints about how the UK can combine handling fragile states with diplomacy with rising non-Western powers.
One supremely powerful nation or a small group acting in concert can win a war. But winning the peace takes many nations, working with international agencies, NGOs and others.
In Kenya, we saw the unique pressure that regional organisations can bring to bear when former United Nations’ Secretary General, Kofi Annan – working on behalf of the African Union – successfully brokered a cessation to the post-election violence.
So, tackling conflict in today’s world means working harder with old partners and reaching out to new ones. The Foreign Secretary has talked about a “networked world” and about the foreign policy tools that will influence states which will come to dominate our times.
Development policy must be similarly networked. We must engage multilateral and bilateral donors not only through established mechanisms but through innovative collaborations with new partners – like India and China, Indonesia, South Africa, Turkey, Mexico and Brazil – partners whose reach is crucial if we are to tackle conflict and promote development. I will say more on this subject later this year; it is an important area and one where I want to see DFID charting new territory.
It’s good to see a minister stand up for foreign engagements – and even better that he’s framing them in terms of the changing world order too. More on the details of the speech, and their implications for British policy, later on.
by Alistair Burnett | Sep 15, 2010 | Global Dashboard
Turkish voters approved a new constitution this weekend, greeted in Brussels – if not Paris and Berlin – as a key step on the road to EU membership.
But recent commentary and headlines – particularly in the US – have claimed Turkey is turning its back on the West as the rift between Turkey and Israel deepened following the killing of 9 Turkish citizens by Israeli forces when they raided a Turkish ship trying to run the blockade of Gaza in May.
Turkey is an ally of the US and a staunch member of NATO, it has also been trying to get into the EU for more than twenty years, so why are some commentators saying Ankara is turning away from the West? (more…)
