UK: No longer willing

For years, I've been documenting the collapse of the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. Soon, Britain will no longer have troops in Iraq. The BBC reports:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has indicated that almost all British troops should leave Iraq by the middle of next year, with a few hundred possibly remaining to train Iraqi security forces.

Previously it had been suggested that troops could start leaving in January.

However, the BBC has learned that the process is likely to begin in March - six years after the US-led invasion.

Of course, Britain's withdrawal is different from earlier defections in the coalition. Conditions on the ground in Iraq are apparently much-improved and the UK is mulling over the diversion of its troops to Afghanistan. Thus, the UK can claim "mission accomplished" and demonstrate its willingness to help the US in the war on terror.

Note also that in 2007 PM Gordon Brown announced the withdrawal of half of British troops.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Coalition: less and less willing

October 9, William Kole of AP reported about the continued unraveling of the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. PM Gordon Brown announced that the UK is withdrawing most of its remaining forces from Iraq:

At its height, in the months after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the multinational force numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries - 250,000 from the United States, about 40,000 from Britain and the rest ranging from 2,000 Australians to 70 Albanians.

By January of this year, though, the combined non-U.S. contingent had dwindled to just over 14,000. As of Tuesday, it stood at 20 nations and roughly 11,400 soldiers.

It's in for more unraveling: Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday that Britain will halve its remaining force of 5,000 next spring, and another official said there were no guarantees any British troops would remain in Iraq beyond the end of 2008.

Denmark pulled out most of its forced in August. Latvia and Lithuania left over the summer.

Georgia has announced, like the UK, a major reduction in its force presence -- from 2000 now to 300 next summer.

I've frequently noted the withering away of the coalition.


Visit this blog's homepage.

"Taken with a pinch of salt"

Patrick Mercer, special security adviser to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, was quoted by The Guardian today:

'There is increasing concern about the apparent evidence that America is preparing about Iranian military involvement.'
Mercer, who last month accepted a post as an adviser to the Brown government, said: 'All that I heard when I was in Iran was British authorities saying "be careful about what you hear from America". I'm not saying for one moment that it is necessarily wrong, but it's got to be taken with a pinch of salt. Is it American rhetoric, propaganda or fact?'

The Guardian story also reports on the activities of a new neocon group called Freedom Watch (established in March), which recently starting running TV ads emphasizing the "threat" from Iran.

The group has close links with the White House: its president, Bradley Blakeman, is a former deputy assistant to Bush. Among its founders is Mel Sembler, a Florida shopping centre magnate who helped to finance the 2000 Florida recount campaign that gave Bush his first presidency. Another is former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.

A few weeks ago, Freedom Watch spent $15 million running ads in support of the US strategy in Iraq.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Global Poverty

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, penned a troubling piece for the Sunday Boston Globe. He leads with a jab aimed directly at foreign policymakers in affluent states:

GLOBAL POVERTY IS the most important foreign policy issue of our time--or, at any rate, it should be. And indeed there are signs that the sheer unrelenting grinding deprivation that keeps 1.1 billion people living on less than $1 a day is capturing the attention of many politicians for whom realpolitik has usually ruled out the interests of the poor.

As part of the UN's Millennium Development Goals, affluent states promised to help the global poor reach a wide range of goals by 2015. They meant to halve global poverty and achieve universal primary education, for example. So far, this goal looks more like a pipe dream:

As Gordon Brown, Britain's chancellor of the exchequer and a passionate advocate for human development, declared last month at meeting of African finance ministers in South Africa, the world is lagging as much as 100 years behind schedule.

A century!

As they have previously, affluent states promised to give 0.70% of their national income in aid. In reality, the total is only about 0.25% and the US contribution is about 0.14%. The difference between the promised and actual giving is $130 billion per year.

Keep in mind that the Iraq war has cost $200 billion so far.

In 2000, George Bush promised to put $5 billion towards the Millennium Challenge Account. Despite the applause lines last week in the State of the Union address (fighting global AIDS, for example), Bush has broken this promise.

Tony Blair, in contrast, has been out front on this issue. He recently called for the moneyed west to forgive 100% of Africa's $70 billion foreign debt.

Horton argues that one problem the UN faces is Kofi Annan's weakened position. He doesn't say so, but I presume he's talking about the oil-for-food scandal.

So Annan is to blame for leaders of rich states ignoring the world's poor?

US-European relations: update

Condi Rice is on her first business trip as Secretary of State. One mission: to repair US-European relations, battered by the Iraq war, the Kyoto Protocol, and American unilateralism pre-dating 9/11 and the Bush Presidency. This is from the AP wire story:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday that European allies have told her they're ready to move on from the sometimes rocky relations brought on by the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Of course, Rice made this claim in Warsaw (Poland), not Paris, Berlin or Brussels.

Following a meeting with Polish Foreign Minister Adam Rotfeld, Rice told reporters, "I think what we're hearing from Europe is a desire to move on to the next chapter in this great alliance."

...Earlier in her first trip as the United States' senior diplomat, Rice thanked Britain, America's staunchest ally in the Iraq war and pledged a "new chapter" in relations with Germany, which opposed the war but now wants to support democracy in Iraq.

Then again, what book is she referencing? In Robert Ludlam bestsellers, virtually every chapter until the conclusion ends with a harrowing cliff-hanger.

Indeed, the latest post-tsunami chapter of US-European relations seems to feature ongoing political differences. This time, even the British are "against us," and even Nelson Mandela cannot bring the parties together. These passages are from the AFP wire:

A US-Europe rift threatened to torpedo a British-led initiative to tackle global poverty as finance ministers from the Group of Seven rich nations began formally meeting here....

Ministers met at the home of British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown early Saturday after failing to reach common ground on development aid during a working dinner the previous night and as their deputies took up the baton into early Saturday, European officials said.

Ministers had Friday met with Mandela who urged them to back a doubling in annual development assistance to 100 billion dollars and to approve 100 percent debt cancellation for Africa.

"I urge you to act tonight, do not delay when poor people continue to suffer," Mandela said.

But in subsequent talks, according to German secretary of state for finance Caio Koch-Weser, "the Americans (were) in a completely different frame of mind from the Europeans."

Under discussion was an ambitious scheme proposed by Britain that would fund a package of financial assistance of up to 100 billion dollars a year and provide debt relief and trade benefits.

US Undersecretary of the Treasury John Taylor said here Friday that the plan "doesn't work" for the United States.

British International Development Secretary Hilary Benn said that a solution would be found, with or without the US.

"You don't need everybody on board to launch the IFF," [International Finance Facility] Benn told the BBC.

"One way or the other, what is inconceivable is that the world will come to Gleneagles ... without having found ways of raising the additional money that we know is needed to save children's lives and to give developing countries the helping hand they need as they help themselves out of poverty," he said.

If the G7 fails, France and Germany are expected to announce their own development initiative.

This is a big deal for Tony Blair, who has called often and quite publicly for cancellation of debt, various trade incentives and greater financial aid for the poorest countries around the world, especially African nations.