by Richard Gowan | May 11, 2008 | Africa, Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa
Exactly how bad has the first half of this month been for the UN? Where does one start? You could choose Burma, where the international organization’s ability to deliver aid in a hostile climate has been hurled into doubt. Or Sudan, where Darfuri rebels sallied forth to attack Khartoum, demonstrating exactly what they think of the security offered by the struggling UN forces on their patch. But the worst news of all (from an institutional rather than humanitarian point of view, given the Burmese horror) may yet prove to be that from Lebanon.
The spread of fighting between the government’s backers and Hezbollah, apparently delayed rather than halted by an attempted deal on Saturday, has highlighted a challenge for the UN that I’ve muttered about here before. The 12,000+ mainly European UN troops in South Lebanon are mandated to (i) support the army and (ii) prevent the flow of arms to Hezbollah. But it has been an open secret that the peacekeepers have a variety of understandings with Hezbollah to avoid trouble. As I pointed out in two magazine articles (here and here) it has never been clear how they would balance these ideals and deals in a full-on crisis.
One can cry wolf too often: I also predicted that such a crisis might emerge in December, along with simultaneous military set-backs for European forces in Kosovo and Chad. And I scored 0 out of 3. Or rather, all three trouble-spots stayed quiet-ish up to the start of 2008. But in the ensuing four months, it has all come to pass pretty much as predicted. In February, Chad blew up as the EU tried to deploy troops – in March, the UN and NATO had to fight it out with Serb rioters in Kosovo.
Two out of three, in this case, ain’t good. And Lebanon?
In April, there were signs that the modus vivendi between the UN and Hezbollah was starting to erode: the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that peacekeepers attempting to inspect a suspicious truck for arms were driven off by gun-toting militants. The UN denied this, but there have long been rumors that European UN units had backed off on meeting Hezbollah patrols, or refused to patrol at night.
And now Lebanon looks close to civil war, and if this starts to be felt in the UN’s operational zone in the south of the country (not yet the site of fighting) it’s hard to believe that the Lebanese government, the Israelis and the U.S. won’t demand that the peacekeepers get tough. As Global Dashboard’s Peacekeeping Cassandra, I’m also on record as saying that I fear they’ll run away instead. Let’s see.
by Daniel Korski | Apr 30, 2008 | Conflict and security, South Asia
Prince William, the second in line to the British throne, just finished a trip to Afghanistan, which probably happened at the same time as Taliban gunmen failed to kill Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a slew of international officials.
Despite Prince William’s safe return and President Karzai’s lucky escape, it should be clear to anyone that things are not going particularly well for NATO’s Afghan mission.
All is not lost, but it could be unless there is a change of strategy. What should such a change entail?
(more…)
by Richard Gowan | Apr 28, 2008 | North America, UK
Would you rather be a member of the liberal left on the western or eastern side of the Atlantic right now? Not easy. Labour’s in free-fall. The Democrats are devising innovative ways to lose an election that they should own. But Jackie Ashley at the Guardian still sees cause for hope: Gordon might be the new Hillary.
There can’t be a lot that cheers Gordon Brown over his morning porridge, but if he turns to the foreign pages he might ponder the Hillary effect. In Hillary Clinton, we see a politician loathed by a big section of the population, written off, jeered at, ordered to leave the stage, who, by sheer dogged determination – and by fighting, not quitting – has not only managed a comeback but earned grudging respect.
We have become very used to demanding resignations and calling “off with his head” at the slightest provocation. There has been a strange, semi-hysterical mood around Brown, a kind of national rage that he doesn’t either crumble in public or just bog off.
But all is not lost. Gordon is displaying “gritty determination” just like Hillary:
There may come a time when people begin to tire of the hysteria and see this. The Hillary effect is that just buggering on, to use Churchill’s phrase, can win people round.
Stirring stuff. But stirring stuff that suggests that the author is not entirely au fait with the mood among her U.S. counterparts. You want “a strange, semi-hysterical mood”? Then turn to the op-ed page of the New York Times. You’d think McCain was already ensconced in the White House. Here’s Bob Herbert (admittedly an Obama advocate, if now a jittery one) writing in Saturday’s edition:
Anger is growing like a cancer among Democrats. The Clintons have more than lived up to their polarizing reputations, slicing and dicing the electorate and then gleefully exploiting the myriad divisions. Their message varies, depending on whether it’s in public or behind the scenes. But the mantra is roughly as follows: Obama won’t win! He can’t win whites. Jeremiah Wright! He can’t win women. He can’t win Hispanics. He’ll lose Jewish voters. Farrakhan! We’ll nuke Iran.
The share of Clinton voters who have been telling exit pollsters that they will not vote for Senator Obama if he wins the nomination is inching toward the red zone. At the same time, there is growing resentment of the Clintons’ tactics among Obama partisans, especially the young and African-Americans.
What we’re witnessing here — in what was supposed to have been a championship season for Democrats — is a potential train wreck.
Herbert immediately goes on to say that this isn’t just the doing of the Clintons: Obama bears responsibility too. But while Ashley talks about “buggering on”, the Democrats look like they’re buggering up. You want a piece of this, Labour?
by Daniel Korski | Apr 28, 2008 | Europe and Central Asia
Nothing is more viral than a political gaffe – just ask Hilary Clinton. But what about EU accession policy? Well, in the Balkans anything goes.
Twenty days ago I wrote a piece about the EU’s policy in the region on ECFR’s website. I recommended “reverse conditionality” – in other words that the
EU should give three countries in the Balkans a date when they can expect to join the EU: Croatia’s could be 2010, Albania’s 2011 and Macedonia’s 2012.
(Though they would only be allowed at these dates if the EU’s aquis communitaire was adopted).
After being picked up by a Macedonian news agency last week, the article led the news on Macedonia TV, and I had to give interviews to numerous Macedonian
newspapers, blogs and TV stations. The day ended with the Macedonia foreign minister writing to my boss and all the ECFR board members, asking for further
support for Skopje’s EU application.
The next day, Albanian and Montenegrin newspapers called to ask why I had rated their country like I had; and why I had left Montegro out.
Sure – Skopje is looking for any sign of support after the country’s rejection for NATO membership at the Bucharest Summit in April. And many august individuals sit on our council. But I’m still amazed at how the article went viral. Brave New World.
by Daniel Korski | Apr 26, 2008 | Europe and Central Asia, Influence and networks
For three weeks, Europe’s “big men” have been polishing off their CVs in the hope of getting one of the new top EU jobs to be created if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. They all want to be at the other end of the phone when the U.S wants speak to Europe, as Henry Kissinger said he wanted to.There’s the new permanent President of the European Council, the old job heading up the European Commission, the new EU Foreign Minister (alright, “High Representative”) and the lesser-know slot of Mr. Euro i.e. the chair of ECOFIN. Add to this the President of the European Parliament, the head of the ECB and – outside the EU – NATO secretary-general, which also comes up in 2009.Not all the jobs are connected. Some, like the EU Foreign Minister, have to be decided on in January. Others, like the President of the European Parliament and the Commission President, will depend on the 2009 parliamentary elections held later in 2009. Jean Claude Trichet, the French banker in charge of the ECB, is going nowhere. But having a Frenchman in the post will make it more difficult for Paris to get other slots.
You still with me? Then there’s the politics. EU elections in late 2009 will be key, as the European Parliament has a say on some of the slots. Right now, the centre-right EPP holds power and last time pushed to install current European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in 2005. But a swing to the left, will impact choices.
Politics in the EU-27 also matters. Right now, the return of Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi would seem to favour centre-right candidates, yet Poland’s new centre-left government may counterbalance this. But the centre/left divide is not always a useful guide; right-wing Nicola Sarkozy has publicly backed New Labour’s Tony Blair. In the EU context, the federal/intergovernmental is important.
Have I lost you? Good. So with all this, who’s in the running?
(more…)
