…but you can’t make him drink. This is pretty much about where we are with the Government in Afghansitan these days. Paddy Ashdown was supposed to be the new ’super-envoy’ of the UN to get the international community’s civilian efforts all on the same page. He was going to be a real asset to Kabul, NATO and the UN. But the Afghans sunk the ship before it even left port. 

Easy come, easy go as one friend of mine close to Paddy Ashdown told me yesterday. My response – what a way for the Afghans to shoot themselves in the foot.  Paddy Ashdown was the best person to corral western efforts in Afghanistan. He was not – and he knew he could not – going to force the Afghans to do anything they did not want. He might have applied pressure regarding corruption in the Government in Kabul, but that would have been a good thing. A lot of Afghans are disenfranchised that many of the people who destroyed Afghanistan in the civil war of the 1990s are now in the government. And the police are rubbish, since the Ministry of the Interior is more akin to a Ministry of Corruption than anything else.  But the key thing here is that Ashdown had the personality to move the West to act. He is respected. It would be tough for the international community to respond when he spoke. Furthermore, the Americans had faith in him, which is crucial to the success of anyone in the post.  I doubt the second choice will be a better one. Way to go Kabul. Karzai’s pettiness will cost him. 

 On Karzai shooting his own foot: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3254382.ece 

On Ashdown’s appointment: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3195780.ece 

Commentary on the appointment: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3196614.ece 

It is pretty amazing, but it looks like the Republic Party might just be getting back on track. I don’t think that we should get too excited yet, but if McCain gets the nomination at least things are starting too look better for us all. Now, Dems might disagree with this. McCain will make a Dem victor in November more difficult. Don’t we want the Republicans all messed up and in chaos? Well, yes and no.  

Hopefully, come November the Republicans will get their clocks cleaned. Increased margins in the House and Senate look most likely and the White House is a very, very distinct possibility. I hope that this will cause a re-alignment in the Republican party, kicking them back to the center. Lets get the fiscally conservative, socially more open, let the states run the show Republicans back. As a guy living in self-imposed exile during the Bush years, there are plenty of Republicans I dislike. But there are a lot I actually do like. We might disagree on some things, but we can agree on others. In the end we all win if the Republicans get back to their traditional values.

Reagan managed to push America to a more conservative corner, but as of late it looks like the party has over-reached. The US is not that conservative and hopefully the country will benefit as Republicans realize that if they want to succeed they have to speak to the majority of Americans who are independent, open minded and a bit conservative, rather than a bunch of crazy zealots who are a minority and will stay as one.

  I think that we should allow students to grade their own essays? Because, really, who better to determine if the student has done a good job other than the student. For that matter, I don’t think I should have an annual performance review conducted by my boss and the Director of the Institute anymore. It would make far more sense for me to self regulate. And as for public health inspections – why don’t we just let the restaurants inspect themselves rather than maintaining a uniform system of inspection.  Does all of this sound like rubbish to you? Then you are going to love the news that private Muslim schools have been given the right to police themselves by the Government (Dept for Children, Schools and Families). T

he story, reported in The Daily Telegraph (31 Jan 08), indicates that Muslim schools will be able to appoint their own Ofsted-style inspectors so that they can be more ‘sensitive’ to Islamic education. Under the decision 50 Christian schools will have similar powers. It is completely absurd.  Education in the United Kingdom and any other advanced country should be regulated by the state. Standards should be ensured uniformly by the same inspectorate, not a bunch of self-appointed ‘inspectors’. Supposedly Ofsted will regulate the new inspectorate – so why not just regulate the schools.

With all the concern about fundamentalism these days and the quality of education more generally, it seems a bit off-key to allow schools (Christian, Muslim, Montessori, you name it) to self-regulate.  It may seem to some that this is an effort to promote ‘multiculturalism’ but the fact of the matter is that is only promotes the further development of parallel cultures. This is not just about Muslims excluding themselves from society, it is also about the British turning their backs on Muslims. If the Government really cared about good religious education, they should be involved, not distant. It runs exactly counter to the Prime Minister’s desire to get British values back to the forefront.  

The world loves to hate America, but interestingly enough the United States does not have a problem with its Muslim population that numbers about five million, roughly 2.5 times larger than the Muslim population of the UK. Sure fanatics might fly planes into American sky-scrapers, but none of them held US passports. American society is premised on the basis that there are certain values one must accept and those values are instilled in the young through education. The Muslim population in the US is much more contented than in the UK. No one cares what you speak at home or what religion you belong to, so long as the basic values are respected. Europe is scared to death of enforcing such an approach, but the fact of the matter is that multiculturalism has failed in Britain, it has failed in the Netherlands and it is failing across Europe. One would think that this Government and the Department for Children, Schools and Families would understand this.

Ok – perhaps I was a little too nervous. Perhaps I was a little too cautious. Who knows. But the good news is that John McCain won the Republican primary in SC which dispels doubts about his ability to win in the Bible Belt and increases my faith that the American electorate knows what is at stakes in this election.

Now while part of me wants McCain to get the nomination, another part of me knows that if he does it will make a victory for the Dems all that much harder come November. Still, I would rather not even risk having someone like Huckabee in the general election.  As I wrote earlier, never say never.

 For the meantime the primaries go on. It is shaping up to be a great race on both sides. Clinton and McCain are back in the top spots, but with SC coming up for the Dems and Obama 10 pts ahead Mrs Clinton might have another rough day coming. McCain has to deal with Giuliani who, up until this point, has been largely absent from the primary race.

 It is difficult to call things right now, but I have  feeling that as the economy worses and the public gets worried that Mrs Clinton is going to shine on the Dem side. The same might happen to Mr McCain, although Mr Guiliani  is going to play the fear card as much as he can in Florida.

If the world is a global village, then the village idiot is Mike Huckabee.  

If this man is elected president of the United States, there is a high probability I will burn my passport and seek asylum in a progressive country like Zimbabwe or something. I mean really.  

You might wonder why I am about to go on this rant (which is really what it is, no time for calm policy analysis right now). I know it is a long shot, but if this man is elected US President, there will be some serious implications around the world.

In a recent interview Huckabee discussed abortion and gay marriage. He would amend the US Constitution to ban both abortion and gay marriage. According to Huckabee, these are not radical moves.

Afterall – “The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was…”  

The President’s first move will probably be to have a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to discuss how he can better transform the United States into a theocracy most effectively. Has Mr. Huckabee forgotten that the US has citizens who are not Christian?!? I am all about saying Merry Christmas and not happy holidays, but there are limits to the cultural Christian argument. I am sorry, but the US is a multi-cultural society and is not meant to be governed by the Bible. Massachusetts tried that a few hundred years ago and it was pretty rubbish. And we seem to have problems with places that are theocracies like Taliban Afghanistan and modern day Iran…maybe Mr Huckabee should pick up a history book or two rather than his Bible.  

Now you might say “well, the man will never get elected.” Yeah – ok. Everyone in Europe thought Bush would not get re-elected in 2004. Oops, I did it again, to quote or favourite melt-down diva. Huckabee is neck and neck with Senator John McCain in Saturday’s key primary race in South Carolina. Mason-Dixon Polling & Research puts Huckabee on 25% and McCain on 27%. He is not a favourite nationally – but I don’t care. The fact that an idiot (I’m sorry, I don’t like names calling but he really is one) who does not believe in evolution and wants to write discrimination into the US Constitution is even being so seriously considered to be President of one of the greatest (I’m starting to have doubts) countries in the world is amazing. 

 Huckabee is not about leaving it to the States to decide the issues:  

“That’s the logic of the Civil War that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, ‘Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period. It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else.’ Same with abortion.” 

Ah yes. Slavery is wrong. Let me just find that passage in the Bible…oh, no, wait! Slavery is OK! What is going on here!?!?

Apparently the man really does not understand how these things work. Did I mention that in a recent nationally televised primary debate Huckabee said loud and proud that he does not believe in evolution?  

Look – I am not a God-hater. I was raised Catholic and I think religion can do a lot of good in the world. I refuse to let Radical Christian Fundamentalists (or maybe we should use the term Christian-fascists, so it better fits alongside there favourite term Islmo-fascist) assume all Christians are horrible people out to destroy democracy as we know it. But the fact of the matter is that the strength of Western civilization comes from our separation of religion and government. No where has this been the case more so than in America. The religious right in America clearly does not understand this and given the power of special interests in the US system there is always a possibility that someone like Huckabee could actually get elected. Hopefully, if he wins the Republican nomination, the Republican ship will really be headed downwards giving the Dems a clear win. But you never know. Never say never.  

My advice: Donate to John McCain’s campaign, hope he gets the nomination and then vote for the Democrat in the general election!  

You can donate to McCain’s campaign here: https://www.johnmccain.com/Contribute/ContributeB.aspx?guid=505f651f-7989-4605-bfbf-1c70d2b9d654 

Yesterday it became official that Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (know more commonly as Paddy), will be the new UN ’super-envoy’ to Afghanistan. Is the man crazy or a genius? If there is anyone that can pull together the Western effort in Afghanistan and effectively work with the Afghan government to deliver results, it is Paddy Ashdown. He did a great job in the Balkans, but can he do the same in Afghanistan. My bet is no – well, lets hedge that. If he gets a clear mandate and real powers then yes, he can succeed. But what are the chances of him getting a clear mandate given that NATO really can’t answer what it is doing in Afghanistan (Ok, the Secretariat can, but asked the allies and you get a who heck of a lot of different goals). Even if he gets a clear mandate, will he have the powers required to do the job? The terms of reference have not been announced, but in some conversations with officials in DC last week I got the impression that he is not going to have the powers he really needs. The thinking is that he might not be formally awarded the powers, but that he is a strong enough character that he will just take them over time….risky bet. For NATO, for the UN, for Afghanistan and for Paddy.  All of this thinks that maybe Paddy is crazy to step into the lions den – or very brave.

The Western effort in Afghanistan has been less than optimal – that is what happens when you try and do this kind of thing on the cheap. The situation on the ground is not good and Paddy Ashdown has said he thinks NATO and the UN are losing on the ground. I imagine that ultimately he knows this and knows that he probably needs more than he is getting – but that if he does not step in the whole thing is really going to go belly up. I hope he can turn it around, but I don’t have much faith that he will get the powers he really needs.  Or the resources for that matter. As one bureaucrat friend of mine recently said, beware reorganisations – they often exist to cover up a lack of resources and rarely do much to improve the situation.  

Fingers crossed and good luck Paddy.

OK – so you have probably figured out from looking at the blog that I am NOT a diarist! Between writing for RUSI, working on books and doing other things I am terrible at actually getting stuff up and online – but this will change.

Welcome back to the Open Mike for 2008! There is a presidential campaign in the US (yes, it is still going on), Pakistan is in meltdown, Iran is still being pesty and Dick Cheney is probably test-driving tactical nuclear weapons as we speak! Now is the time to talk! So join the debate. If you want to more ‘official’ analysis then visit www.rusi.org/transatlantic

M

I am now safely ensconsed away on a nice little island for some vacation. Although there is no rest for the weary – work must go on, even during holiday. On the flight back I decided that it might be worth tracking some of the better (read worse – there is the English sarcasm I’ve picked up coming through) ideas of the on-going presidential campaign. The first bright idea comes from the former mayor of New York, Rudy G.

 Rudy has come up with the a brilliant plan to make all foreigners entering the US (including tourists) obtain SAFE cards (secure access foreign entry – I think – see The Sunday Times (London) 19 August 2007). These ID cards would be issued upon entering the US and of course Rudy would kick out anyone who overstays there alloted time. While all of this may sound great for ‘I’m so far right I am almost left’ wingers and those who want more border security – perhaps we should come back to reality. The cost of the programme will be astronomical, the enforceability of the programme will be near impossible and will also cost a ton of cash, it will make our borders even less welcoming than they already are and it raises some serious questions about civil liberties. Under what cirucmstances can you be asked to produce a card? It is all a bit sketchy, but really, what do you expect from the crop of current candidates – we are a long way from the inspired leadership that the county needs. Bad border controls hurt American competitivness in the arts, business, education and much more. The losses in the education alone since the introduction of tougher border controls have been staggering and in light of such difficulities many students have looked elsewhere for first class degress. What we need are smarter borders, not more unwelcoming ones.

For some more reading see Stephen Flynn “Beyond Border Control” in Foreign Affairs http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20001101faessay936/stephen-e-flynn/beyond-border-control.html
(this is a pre-9/11 piece, but that does not alter the fundamental mechanics of the argument)

The NY Times is also running an interesting series on migration and immigration – for the latest piece just look below.

 August 20, 2007
The New York Times
Border Crossings
Rising Breed of Migrant Worker: Skilled, Salaried and Welcome
By JASON DePARLE
SHARJAH, United Arab Emirates — In this country where foreigners do most of the work, there are migrant maids and migrant masons, migrant tea boys and migrant typists, all doing what most migrant laborers do, menial tasks for meager wages.

Then there is Peter Mitias, the migrant professor.

An economist with a Louisiana doctorate and a Mississippi drawl, he shocked his friends when he left a tenured job in Virginia for the American University of Sharjah, a school conjured from nothing by a sheik in the suburbs of Dubai. But when he lists the benefits of working abroad, Mr. Mitias crows.

He has free housing and utilities. (“Sweet!”) He has international experience on his résumé. (“Huge!”) He has cheap household help, good schools for his children and a BMW and a Mercedes he was able to buy by paying no income tax. Not to mention plenty of American fast food.

“Papa John’s delivers to my house,” he said. “It’s all here!”

This is migrant work, Ph.D.-style — a lesson about labor, a comment on class, a window onto globalization and a phenomenon on the rise.

Legions of common workers across the globe face new barriers to migration, as destination countries tighten their borders and toughen their talk. But professionals like Mr. Mitias, 39, find ever more welcome mats. Even countries wary of migrant brawn are bullish on migrant brains, and many offer tax breaks and streamlined visas to compete in the global marketplace.

“Everybody wants smart people in their country,” Mr. Mitias said.

While most migrants remain unskilled, and many are desperately poor, the global demographics are shifting.

The number of college-educated migrants in rich Western countries rose 69 percent from 1990 to 2000, according to a World Bank analysis prepared for The New York Times. By contrast, the number of less-educated migrants rose 31 percent.

The analysis, by Caglar Ozden, an economist at the bank, measured movement to 20 nations, including the United States, Canada, Australia and most of Western Europe, and included people who went to college after migrating as children. Of 52 million migrant workers in those countries, 36 percent had some college education, up from 31 percent a decade before.

Of those migrants leaving one rich country for jobs in another, the number with some college education rose 30 percent. The parallel movement of less-skilled workers fell 8 percent.

“My sense is these trends have gotten much stronger since 2000,” Mr. Ozden said. “Educated people are becoming more mobile.”

As a small country filled with hired hands, the United Arab Emirates offers students of migration a uniquely rich habitat. About 85 percent of the work force comes from abroad. There are crowds of Indian construction workers, hammering and hauling in the sun, and solitary maids from Southeast Asia scrubbing behind locked doors.

Most are forced to come alone and spend years without seeing their children. But there are also pockets of prospering professionals, families in tow: Indian doctors, British bankers and American lawyers. Ski Dubai, the famous indoor slope, has Russian ski instructors.

“We’re stuck in the paradigm of thinking that migration is only about poor people moving to rich countries,” said Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah of the Institute for Public Policy Research, a London research group. “But lots of people move among rich countries, and people from rich countries increasingly move all over the world.”

“Migration is a two-way street,” he said.

The American University of Sharjah is one of many hiring halls here for the highly educated. A passion of the Sharjah ruler, Sheik Sultan Bin Mohammed al-Qassimi, it opened in 1997 with deep pockets and hopes of building East-West ties. The school now has about 4,000 international students and 300 professors, about half from North America.

The professors work on long-term contracts, with no route to citizenship, and live in free campus housing, with up to $82,400 of earnings free from American income tax. There is no local income tax.

Some come for the money. Some come for adventure. Some come to revive stalled careers. Some come to have regrets.

“I feel like I’ve put my life on hold,” said Tina Richardson, 46, who teaches mass communications at the university and leads the faculty senate.

She arrived from Oregon four years ago, looking for a place to raise her son and a way out of debt. But the teaching has been less rewarding than she hoped, the cost of living has been higher, and cross-cultural friendships harder to establish, especially as a single mother in an Islamic society. After an early trip to the campus pool left her feeling ogled, she did not return.

“I get attention that I don’t want as a single, blond woman—attention I don’t do anything to solicit other than exist in my body,” she said. While the setting has been good for her teenage son, “it’s been a disaster for me personally.”

Elites have long sought their fortunes abroad, but today’s mobility is marked by its spread to more middle classes. A study that Mr. Sriskandarajah helped to write found nearly one in 10 British citizens living in a foreign country, including retirees. “There’s been a democratization of the ability to move,” he said.

Middle-class mobility seems likely to grow. As foreign trade and investment expand, more workers have reason to follow. E-mail and cellphones bridge distances. And since the tech boom of the late 1990s, more governments have opened their doors.

Some countries want migrants to stay. Canada long ago pioneered a point system that promises a work visa and a path to citizenship to any worker with the right qualifications. Now the list of places with similar programs includes Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Hong Kong and the Czech Republic. But much of the recent growth has been in temporary plans. The United States, Britain, Ireland and France are among those with time-limited visas for the skilled. Sweden and Denmark have courted foreigners with tax breaks. Several countries, most notably Australia, try to capture migrants early, by encouraging foreign students to remain.

For all the global stress on brains, many economies need low-skilled migrants, too. A legion of foreign-born nannies keeps educated Americans on the job. Still, poor foreigners often raise fears of crime and cultural conflict and are more likely to cross borders illegally. Many countries are narrowing — or threatening to narrow — their ability to get in.

“Governments give a green light to high-skilled migrants, but put speed bumps in front of others,” said Jeanne Batalova, a demographer at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington research group. “There’s a stark contrast.”

Though educated migrants are often called “elites,” some analysts say the term disguises the problems they face. Some are reluctant travelers with displaced families, struggling to find housing, health care and schools amid the isolation of a foreign land. A nascent academic literature is exploring such problems as workplace discrimination and the frustration of spouses without jobs.

“It’s difficult to make this kind of lifestyle work,” said Adrian Favell, a sociologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “There are hidden costs.”

Ms. Richardson, the communications teacher, has struggled at home and abroad. After difficulties that included time on food stamps, she spent nearly four years working to support her son while getting a master’s degree from the University of Oregon, only to be rejected by Ph.D. programs. Sharjah offered an escape and tax-free pay. “I was leaving something, rather than going to something,” she said. “What I had wasn’t working.”

More frustrations followed. Without a doctorate, Ms. Richardson started at a lower salary than colleagues, $33,000, and had to work two extra campus jobs. She has spent most of her time teaching English composition to nonnative speakers, far from her interest in women’s literature. And despite her hopes of contributing to an East-West dialogue, Ms. Richardson was unsettled to find herself feeling pulled toward her American identity.

“Culture is just a lot more powerful than I had ever anticipated,” she said. “I found that I really belong to this one culture — American — that I’ve been very critical of.”

By contrast, Mr. Mitias, a football-loving, squirrel-hunting, anything-but-alienated graduate of Louisiana State, has found himself the accidental internationalist, thrilling to possibilities he had not previously glimpsed.

He describes life abroad as a successive discovery of freedoms: freedom from taxes, freedom from mortgages, freedom from crime, freedom from the sex and violence his daughters would see on American television. He and his wife have taken them to places as different as London and Vietnam, and to Thailand three times. “The world’s at your fingertips,” he said.

Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, where he used to teach, is more than two centuries old; Sharjah was waiting to be molded. He has helped created two new graduate programs and guide the business school to American accreditation. With Ivy League colleges starting programs in Dubai, he laughs about colleagues who warned that a foreign job was professional suicide. “Harvard is here,” he said.

While Ms. Richardson talks of missing Oregon glades and big trees, Mr. Mitias’s favorite metaphor is a spinning globe. “I could go to Europe. I could go to Asia. I could go to South America,” he said. “That’s the difference between me and the unskilled workers — I’ve got choices.”
 

 Yes, just when you thought you’d seen the last of America’s bully-in-chief John Bolton, our bushy little friend has popped up once again. Despite having been sidelined by a Congress that now functions like a Congress, rather than a parliament, Mr Bolton still sees fit to dicate to the international community. This time Mr Bolton lampoons the UK for trying to be a bridge builder between the USA and those rascally continental Europeans. Despite the fact that the US needs European help in Afghanistan (and would love European help in Iraq, which is not going to happen) Mr Bolton thinks it foolish for the UK to maintain a policy that would help bring Europe and America closer together. Afterall, have not the last six years shown that America can go it alone and change the world for the better? Oh, wait, I think John must have missed the memo on that one.  You can find John Bolton’s words of wisdom at the very bottom of this post. My response is just below.

Response to John Bolton’s Britian Can’t Have Two Best Friends 

Financial Times, 2 August 2007

Sir, Mr Bolton’s assertation that the UK cannot have two best friends and that he will wait for answers, “but not forever” reeks of the simplistic and arrogant analysis that has led the USA into its most disastrous foreign policy quagmire in its history.

First, the failed EU Constitutional Treaty and the new ‘not-a-constitution treaty’ are not very new drives forward for the EU – they simply clean up the mess of treaties that 50 years of European integration has produced. The EU will not become a super-state any time in the near future, if ever. Thinking in terms of the state is outmoded, the EU will be some kind of international actor, but it is not going to be one that has ever been seen before. Hopefully, current EU reforms will make it possible for the EU to act more completely on the world stage, but make no mistake; sovereignty over foreign policy still lies with national governments and will remain as such. If Mr Bolton thinks the EU is anywhere close to having a common foreign policy perhaps he should look at EU debates on Iraq or energy security a bit more closely.

Secondly, it is in Britain’s and America’s interest to maintain close links with both Europe and America. America needs a strong Europe and if Britain can serve to link up European and American policy-makers and capabilities then both sides of the Atlantic are better off. Forcing Britain to choose between America and Europe serves no one’s interest. Mr Bolton denies that Britain has ever been a “poodle” to the US, but the course of action he advocates ensures that the UK will end up as exactly that. A UK excluded from Europe will have no where else to turn, but to America where Britain without an ability to influence Europe will have little value to add aside from another flag to the next coalition map. And coalitions of the willing tend to fall apart rather easily. Rather than papier-mâché allies and coalitions the US will be better off with a strong Europe that can help America solve problems. Yes, Mr Bolton that does require compromise, but so do most things in life.

Michael J Williams is the Head of the Transatlantic Security Programme at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies and co-editor of “Power in World Politics” (Routledge 2007).
Britain Can’t Have Two Best Friends 
   
 By John R. Bolton 
 
Financial Times   
Publication Date: August 1, 2007
 
  
Senior Fellow
John R. Bolton  
Gordon Brown’s first Washington visit as Britain’s prime minister has prompted tea-leaf reading about the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S.-UK relationship. Momentarily diverting–and probably unavoidable–as the frenzy of speculation is, the real tests lie ahead. Actions ultimately trump semiotics in national security affairs.

Moreover, as contentious and important as Iraq is, it is a mistake to think that disagreements on that issue represent a fundamental change in the U.S.-UK relationship. Tony Blair and President George W. Bush disagreed on global warming, as will Mr. Brown and Mr. Bush, but in neither case does the disagreement reflect a tectonic shift.

In fact, whether the “special relationship” grows stronger or weaker lies entirely in British hands. Americans across the political spectrum are content to keep it as it is and has been essentially since the second world war. That does not mean that the two countries always agree, nor has it ever meant that Britain is a poodle following America’s lead, self-flagellating Brits notwithstanding.

Saying that the UK’s “single most important bilateral relationship” is with America, but is not comparable with UK membership of the EU, is a clever but ultimately meaningless dodge.
 
There are, however, more fundamental questions. Successive UK governments have taken Britain deeper and deeper into the European Union, all the while proclaiming that nothing fundamental about Britain’s status was changing. Britain is not unique in this regard. Europeans advocating an “ever-closer union” continually reaffirm that they are not changing anything fundamental about their sovereign control over foreign and domestic policy.

This attitude has been widespread, but the re-emergence of a European “constitution”–under whatever name–has brought Britain to a clear decision point. The long, slow slide into the European porridge has had few clear transition points. In the aggregate, however, the magnitude of changes in the status of the EU’s formerly Westphalian nation-state members can no longer be blinked away.

Thus, saying that the UK’s “single most important bilateral relationship” is with America, but is not comparable with UK membership of the EU, is a clever but ultimately meaningless dodge. Drop the word “bilateral.” What is Britain’s most important “relationship?” Does Mr. Brown regard the EU as a “state under construction,” as some EU supporters proclaim, or not?

The answers to these questions are what Washington really needs to know. What London needs to know is that its answer will have consequences.

For example, why does a “union” with a common foreign and security policy, and with the prospect of a real “foreign minister” have two permanent seats on the UN Security Council and often as many as three non-permanent seats out of a total of 15 council members? France and Britain may not relish the prospect of giving up their unique status, but what is it that makes them different–as members of the “Union”–from Luxembourg or Malta? One Union, one seat.

Mr. Brown cannot have it both ways (nor will President Nicolas Sarkozy), in part because many other EU members will not let the matter rest. Of course, the Security Council permanent seat itself is not the real issue–it is the question of whether Britain still has sovereignty over its foreign policy or whether it has simply taken its assigned place in the EU food chain.

Consider also the U.S.-UK intelligence relationship. Fundamental to that relationship is that pooled intelligence is not shared with others without mutual consent. Tension immediately arises in EU circles, however, when Britain advocates policies based on intelligence that other EU members do not have. How tempting it must already be for British diplomats to “very privately” reveal what they know to European colleagues. How does Mr. Brown feel about sharing U.S. intelligence with other Europeans?

Finally, there is Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, which will prove in the long run more important for both countries than the current turmoil in Iraq. Here the U.S. has followed the EU lead in a failed diplomatic effort to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. If Mr. Bush decides that the only way to stop Iran is to use military force, where will Mr. Brown come down? Supporting the U.S. or allowing Iran to goose-step towards nuclear weapons?

I will wait for answers to these and other questions before I draw conclusions about “the special relationship” under Mr. Brown. But not forever.

John R. Bolton is a senior fellow at AEI

 The German government has been stuck between a rock and a hard place with regards to Afghanistan. One gets the feeling that the Government understands the necessity of the German deployment to Afghanistan, but because of pacifist tendencies amongst the electorate the politicians have not allowed the Bundeswehr to assist in Southern Afghanistan where the troops are most needed. 

 This has resulted in a vicious circle where politicans decline to send more troops because of public hostility towards the mission, which means than an under-resourced NATO mission must resort to aerial bombardments against targets, which inevitably kills innocent Afghan civilians, which then leads to outrage among German voters (and other western electorages) and demands that Germany and/or NATO pull out of Afghanistan. The Federal Government then cites this public opposition to the deployment to reaffirm that German troops will only operate in the north and that no more will be sent, which means that NATO is under-resourced and using bombing and…..the cycle repeats ad nauseum and does little to improve them life of the average Afghan nor does it help facilitate the NATO mission. For a weak defence of this position see Karsten Voight’s interview at the Atlantic-Community.com website.

What the government needs is some courage to really push the voters thresholds – but there are some issues beyong their control, the actions of OEF forces being one. OEF aside, Germany must do more in Afghanistan and the burden must be shared amongst the allies. Why is it that Dutch, British and Canadian troops can die in Southern Afghanistan but that German or French soldiers cannot? If the Federal Government is trying to undermind NATO solidarity and call into question the future of the Alliance, they are doing a good job.

 One can only hope that this endorsement of more troops might indicate a future change of policy, but given the apparent dissent between the MOD and the Government Coalition I suppose not.

German government in disagreement over German Afghanistan contingent

    Excerpt from report by German news agency ddp

    [Report by Martin Roy: "Government in Disagreement Over Additional Soldiers for Afghanistan - Coalition Groups in Favour - Defence Ministry Opposed"]

    Duesseldorf (ddp) – A controversy is looming in the government in the discussion about an extension of the Bundeswehr [German Armed Forces] Afghanistan mandates. While CDU/CSU [Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union] Bundestag [lower chamber of the German Parliament] Group leader Volker Kauder (CDU) and SPD [Social Democratic Party of Germany] Defence expert Joern Thiessen on Monday [ 30 July] showed their approval to the deployment of additional soldiers, the Defence Ministry was opposed to such a step, the newspaper Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger reported in its Monday edition. Greens Party Chairman Reinhardt Buetikofer spoke out in favour of an expansion of the Bundeswehr’s ISAF [International Security and Assistance Force] mission in Afghanistan, at the same time demanding and end to Germany’s participation in the antiterror operation “Enduring Freedom.”

    [passage omitted]

    Kauder said: “If the Federal Government thinks it necessary to increase the German contingent, then I also think that this is the right thing to do.” He believed that the Bundeswehr was in a position to do so. Kauder suggested combining the votes on the extension of the Bundeswehr Afghanistan mandates scheduled for September in order to avoid repeated discussions. “For our security in Germany, the operation of the Bundeswehr is very important. Hence, the majority in the German Bundestag is guaranteed,” he said. The SPD would certainly conduct intensive discussions. But he expected only a few votes against it, he stated. “As long as we have not defeated the Taleban, a withdrawal is out of the question. This is because a pullout would increase the terrorist danger in Europe dramatically,” Kauder said.

    Thiessen said he saw a stable majority in the Bundestag for an extension of the ISAF mandate, but not for the “Operation Enduring Freedom.” “We practically know nothing about what the United States is doing there,” he stated. Thiessen said he supported the recent statement by SPD Chairman Kurt Beck, who said that it might be necessary to send more Bundeswehr soldiers to Afghanistan. “Civilian projects can only be carried out under military protection, or else, the people would not go there. Civilian and military forces have to pull together,” the SPD Bundestag deputy said.

    With reference to a Defence Minsitry representative, the Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger reported that the ministry did not envisage an increase in the number of soldiers in Afghanistan, but first wanted to achieve an “internal optimization.” The opposition to the “Operation Enduring Freedom” in parts of the SPD would lead to demands for a massive increase in ISAF troops. However, the ISAF mission also involved combat actions.

    Buetikofer said: “Everything depends on civilian reconstruction.” The most important challenges were the establishment of an efficient Afghan police and a reliable army. In both tasks, the international help was lagging behind schedule. Buetikofer continued: “It is true that the quality of the German commitment to the establishment of a police force is being praised, but it is not sufficient in its scope. Therefore, it does make sense to put even more emphasis on the establishment of the police.” He expected the majority of his party to continue to be in favour of the Bundeswehr’s ISAF mission in Afghanistan, he said.

    Source: ddp news agency, Berlin, in German 0356 gmt 30 Jul 07