197* + 1 = 198

Welcome South Sudan!

(In case it's unfamiliar, that's the new South Sudanese flag. Cow-as-flagpole optional.)

Enough frivolity.

Sunday, January 9th 2011 is virtually certain to mark the date of South Sudanese secession, with the major question remaining whether or not turnout reaches the required 60%; when Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir (currently the subject of an ICC indictment over suspected genocide in Darfur) appears to accept the inevitable, it's a pretty clear steer that the game's up.

What really matters is what happens next up to formal independence and recognition.** In no particular order:

- Defining the border,

- Determining the status of the province of Abyei (which happens to cross the putative border and incidentally has lots of oil wells),

- Sharing oil and revenues and agreeing citizenship rights, both for northern Sudanese in South Sudan, and South Sudanese elsewhere in Sudan. (Oh, and protecting the rights of these minorities.)

- Developing one of the world's least developed places, blessed with oil, lots of guns and a 95% illiteracy rate inherited from the decades of war.

It's no mean challenge. But the prize of overcoming decades of war that has left more than 2 million dead is well worth it. And demonstrating that States can divide amicably and use this to overcome conflict is in my view critical to peace-building efforts in the next 20 years as centrifugal forces in some states lead to their breakup.

So, Happy Birthday, South Sudan.

---------------
*197 Current States comprising 192 UN Members, 2 Non-members which have declared independence and enjoy some recognition (Vatican City, Kosovo), 1 Former-member yet to declare independence (Taiwan), 2 Observer members yet to achieve Statehood (Palestine, Western Sahara). To which we could potentially add Somaliland and Darfur in time for 200, though a reunified Korea would drop this back to 199.

** Always worth asking Robin Williams / Adrian Kronauer in Good Morning, Vietnam - "Great Britain recognized the island state of Singapore. How do you recognize an island? Do you go, exc-- Hey, wait. No, don't tell me. Wait, wait. Didn't we meet last year at the Feinman bar mitzvah? You look a lot like Hawaii. Didn't we meet last year at the Peninsula Club? No."

Salman Taseer, a brave example to us all.

(Salman Taseer, murdered Governor of Punjab)

Tuesday's assassination of Salman Taseer, Governor of Pakistan's largest state, Punjab, was shocking not because political violence is unknown in Pakistan (sadly, rather the contrary), nor because of the commentary it provides on the state of the Pakistani State and the government of President Zadari (and it doesn't say much positive about that, either).

Instead, it was shocking because Governor Taseer was killed for defending the rights of an illiterate Christian woman accused of blasphemy, and his subsequent advocacy of repealing a repressive law. This is not a new campaign - see Prof. Akbhar Ahmed's WaPo piece from 2002, and political-religious violence in Pakistan has increased substantially since then.

It is worth remembering that the colonial-era blasphemy law was cynically revived by Zia ul-Haq when the military dictator was embracing Islamism to buttress the popular legitimacy of his illegal regime in the 1980s.

This happened in two stages; first, in 1982 section 295-B of the Pakistani penal code which made desecrating the Koran or making a derogatory remark about it punishable by life imprisonment, and then in 1984 section 295-C of the penal code made

"derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet ... either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly"

punishable with

"death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

(It would presumably be a bit of a bugger to get a death sentence and a fine.)

In 1990, this was clarified by Pakistan's Federal Sharia Court, which ruled, "The penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet ... is death and nothing else."

Ignoring the inherent contradictions of all blasphemy laws (if your God is omnipotent, why does she/he require a law to protect her/him from insults from unbelievers?), Salman Taseer stood up for those without rights and standing at grave cost to himself.

May this courageous man rest in peace.

Quantity has a Quality all its own....

(A soon to be retired RAF Tornado F3. Always important to have a gratuitous F3 QRA launch shot.)

Just before Christmas, DefenseNews reported that the RAF will be down to six fast jet squadrons in the middle of this decade - down from a dozen now, and from 33 at the end of the Cold War. This is all called the "Adaptable Posture" in the UK National Security Strategy adopted ahead of the SDSR in October.

The official position is given by Gen Sir David Richards, the new UK Chief of Defence Staff at RUSI just before Christmas (at 8 mins 30 secs). Apparently the over-arching strategic view is clear.

I beg to differ.

On one level, cuts in the number of RAF fast-jet squadrons will only interest the usual suspects. Said usual suspects will then grumble quietly into their beers, especially noting that the Government and the high command doesn't understand and that this is all a national disgrace. The same sentiments would be found in a discussion with the Royal Navy or those of the British Army.

Are they right?

At one level, this continued contraction is the natural conclusion of the UK's withdrawal from Empire. But the manner in which it is being conducted betrays a continued pandering to a national illusion in which the UK remains a world power and needs the capabilities to hit targets worldwide at a time and place of the PM's choosing, alone if necessary, and in concert with Allies as a preference. In other words, the UK will continue to "punch above its weight" and will "remain a force for good worldwide"; in short, an argument for continued UK exceptionalism.

Not that you'll overtly find this UK exceptionalism argument in the SDSR. There, the focus is all on inter-operability with Allies, and building long-term capabilities. Unfortunately, in the SDSR becoming reality, these fine words have become ruffled with the woolly-headed thinking of the UK as world power brigade. The result of this is that the UK continues to demand the highest possible specification military capability - which comes at a enormous price - which it can only afford in tiny numbers, rendering it much less effective. Truly Stalin's dictum that serves as our title tonight is rarely more effective than when applied to the SDSR's reducto ad absurdum .

I'm not for a second decrying the efforts of the military and civilian staff in attempting to design and build world-beating capability in the UK against a continuously moving budgetary target. Their job is often impossible and always improbable. But for as long as the UK refuses to link its international ambitions with the available resources, there will always be tears before bedtime. Worse, for as long as those ever-more-finite resources are wasted on symbols of national standing (e.g. Trident) then actually useful military capability will continue to suffer.

It is this woolly thinking that leads directly to poor decision making, and it is this lack of Strategic Overview that has led to the Harrier fleet has been prematurely retired and Nimrod MRA4 prototypes are to be cut up in the next month or so. Appalling failure of judgement.

(A soon to be chopped up Nimrod MRA4. Unlike the F3, not being replaced in a meaningful manner.)

Political Compass

Happy 2011 Everyone!

As the 112th US Congress assembles, and in the midst of a UK coalition government about to increase consumption tax by 2.5% to 20% at the beginning of the "Age of Austerity" (clue: unlikely to be either sexy or fun), it's sometimes fun to look at the ideological distribution.

The best place I've found to study this is the good people at PoliticalCompass.org; all very interesting, especially when they look at the historic leaders. Is Mugabe more left wing than Ghandi? No, but he's the antithesis of Ghandi's anti-authoritarianism (and quite a lot of other things, too...)

So here's my chart from our Political Compass. No great surprise on this from my perspective.

Interestingly, here's their take on the UK political parties in 2010 - never saw myself as a Green. Hmm! More interestingly, the plethora of ostensibly "left wing" parties are to varying degrees, increasingly authoritarian - Respect, SSP and SF - but less than Labour and the conservative parties (Tories and UKIP). Interesting too that the nasty racists of the BNP are actually comparatively centrist in economic terms (though presumably only if you're "White British").

And on the same scores, here's the US 2008 positions:

Let me know how you get on - http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Toby