I've put together a photo essay for the agency Magnum, to mark their 60th anniversary. It's called Covering Conflict and looks at some of the most memorable war photographs from the past six decades. You can look at the pictures, and listen to my commentary, .
While the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, was doing some early bonding with new baby Jacob, his colleague at the Foreign Office. Kim Howells, was talking about Britain鈥檚 鈥渟hared values鈥 with Saudi Arabia.
And so I started doing some thinking about values. First, let鈥檚 define our terms. My handy online dictionary offers: 鈥渧alues -- the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard.鈥
So to which ideals and customs do both Brits and Saudis have an affective regard? When Gordon Brown became leader of the Labour party, he spoke of the values he grew up with: 鈥渄uty, honesty, hard work, family and respect for others.鈥 He also spoke of 鈥渟hared British values of liberty, civic duty and fairness to all.鈥
Well, I expect King Abdullah is happy to sign up to duty, honesty, hard work, and family. (We could maybe debate 鈥渉onesty鈥 in a country with a long tradition of 鈥渃ommissions鈥 being paid to middle men 鈥 but we seem to be as good at paying them as Saudis are at receiving them, so perhaps that is indeed a value we share.)
鈥淩espect for others鈥 is an interesting one, given that all Saudi citizens are obliged by law to be Muslim, and no non-Muslim is allowed to hold any public act of worship. And no woman is allowed to drive.
But are 鈥渟hared values鈥 an essential requirement when arranging State visits? What values did we share with President Mobutu of Zaire when he came to London in 1973? Or President Ceaucescu of Romania in 1978?
鈥淪hared interests鈥, on the other hand, are something rather different. A strong trade relationship, prosperity, stability, security 鈥 all these may well be on the agenda of governments with which the UK has little else in common. And in the case of Saudi Arabia, maybe it鈥檚 true that whatever misgivings you may have about the House of Saud, if they were to fall, you鈥檇 have even more misgivings about what might replace them.
But I confess, I鈥檇 dearly love to be a fly on the wall at dinner, when Gordon Brown engages King Abdullah in a discussion about liberty. 鈥淭he anthems that today celebrate our country have at their heart a call to liberty,鈥 said Mr Brown last week. I wonder what the King would make of that.
Here's a little game I played on Newshour today. Which political leader in the industrialised world gets the highest salary? Is it George W Bush, on $400,000 a year? Or Gordon Brown, on 拢187,000 (equivalent to $385,000)? Nicholas Sarkozy of France? Angela Merkel of Germany? None of the above: step forward Prime Minister Bertie Ahern of Ireland, who's just been awarded a 14 per cent pay increase, to take his annual salary to 310,000 euros ($447,000).
Just thought you'd like to know.
Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times reports the findings of a survey carried out by the Levada centre, an independent research group.
"Asked what was more important, "order" or "democracy" - 68 per cent opt for order, 11 per cent for democracy. Some 31 per cent of Russians say they have a positive or very positive feeling about the word "communism"; 11 per cent feel that way about capitalism; democracy gets a 21 per cent positive rating. But "great power" gets 72 per cent approval and "motherland" gets 88 per cent approval. Oh, and only 29 per cent accept Russia's current borders and only 21 per cent think of themselves as "European"."
His full report is .
鈥淭o jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.鈥 So said Winston Churchill, more than 50 years ago. In other words, if you have a dispute, talk it out, don鈥檛 shoot it out.
鈥淭rying is almost always worthwhile.鈥 So said the then Northern Ireland secretary Peter Hain, in a lecture last June about Northern Ireland as a model for conflict resolution.
Unarguable, you may think. But it鈥檚 not necessarily so, according to the former Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble, who has just written a fascinating account of the Northern Ireland peace process (鈥淢isunderstanding Ulster鈥, published by Conservative Friends of Israel) in which he argues that talking isn鈥檛 always and automatically a good idea, and that negotiating without pre-conditions can sometimes be counter-productive.
Let鈥檚 look at two examples. Some time within the next couple of months, if US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has her way, there鈥檒l be an international meeting about the Middle East, designed to draw up a framework for future negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Prospects at present look pretty dismal; so much so that many in the region are saying it鈥檇 be better to scrap the whole idea than to have the meeting and come up with nothing.
As it happens, I was in Israel seven years ago at the start of the violent Palestinian uprising that became known as the second intifada. It came shortly after a failed Israeli-Palestinian summit at Camp David, held in the dying weeks of President Clinton鈥檚 second term. I wrote then: 鈥淚 have never encountered such universal pessimism 鈥 Most worrying of all is what seems to be a total loss of confidence on both sides in the idea that problems can be solved by negotiation.鈥
That鈥檚 what happens when talks fail. If jaw-jaw doesn鈥檛 work, the strong temptation is to return to war-war. That鈥檚 why, Mr Hain notwithstanding, it may not always be worthwhile to try, if success doesn鈥檛 follow.
My second example is Darfur. Peace talks are meant to start in Libya this weekend 鈥 but as we reported on The World Tonight on Wednesday, it looks at the moment as if virtually none of the parties to the conflict will be there. Instead, one of the countless rebel groups in Darfur says it has kidnapped two foreign oil workers 鈥 a Canadian and an Iraqi 鈥 from an oil field that鈥檚 operated by a Chinese-led consortium.
When you鈥檙e invited to enter negotiations, you want as strong a hand as you can get. Maybe a couple of abducted foreigners make good bargaining chips. Could it be that all the efforts that went into setting up the Libya talks have simply increased the dangers?
The conventional wisdom among diplomats is that successful negotiations need to be meticulously planned. Each side needs to have a detailed and in-depth understanding of how far the other side can go to reach a deal. Oh yes, and it helps if each side trusts in the good faith of the other. A US president nearing the end of his time in the White House may be impatient for results, but that鈥檚 not the same as proper preparation for a handshake in front of the world鈥檚 TV cameras.
So am I saying it鈥檚 not worth even trying to negotiate a settlement in the Middle East, or in Darfur? No, of course not. But I do think there鈥檚 a danger in always assuming that jaw-jaw will end war-war. As I fear we are about to discover, it ain鈥檛 necessarily so.
The number of US casualties in Iraq is sharply down this month. Fred Kaplan at Slate.com has a possible explanation
Ali Larijani is the man who for years has been in the forefront of Iran's nuclear negotiations. Now he's resigned, apparently because of policy disagreements with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iranian politics are always complex and subtle: at first sight, this would seem to be a victory for Tehran's hardlines, because Larijani has always been regarded as someone who was on the more flexible end of the Iranian political spectrum.
But there are already signs that some of Ahmadinejad's political opponents want to know more about what's behind his resignation ... there's an excellent analysis by the respected Hawaii-based Iranian analyst Farideh Farhi. Definitely worth looking at ...
It gives me no pleasure at all today to say 鈥淚 told you so.鈥 But those of you with good memories and who already subscribe to my weekly newsletter will recall that back in May I sounded a warning. This is what I wrote then (Newsletter No. 94, 25 May): 鈥淚 suggest that you keep an eye on Pakistan. Watch what London and Washington say as they try to prop up General Musharraf while inching him towards political plurality.鈥 (By the way, if you want to subscribe to the newsletter, you can do so via The World Tonight website here.)
A lot has happened since then, culminating in last night鈥檚 appalling attack on Benazir Bhutto鈥檚 convoy in Karachi. What made it doubly appalling was that it came as no surprise.
In May, I described Pakistan as 鈥渁 seething hotbed of unrest鈥. If it was true then, it is truer today. President Musharraf, under pressure as never before during his eight years in office, has done a deal with Ms Bhutto, but there are plenty of people in both their camps who are deeply suspicious of a rapprochement which bears all the signs of having been if not engineered in Washington, then certainly encouraged.
Among her own supporters, the immediate reaction after last night鈥檚 attack was to blame elements in the Musharraf administration. Her return from exile, they say, was a direct threat to the power of the military and political leaders around Musharraf. So if the bomb attacks were indeed an attempt to kill her, there would have been at least a terrible political logic. With Benazir off the scene, and her long-time rival Nawaz Sharif safely bundled off to Saudi Arabia, Team Musharraf would have been able to hang on for at least a bit longer.
What now? More trouble, more tension, perhaps more violence. Karachi is a city always on the edge, and it鈥檚 the heart of Bhutto country. And don鈥檛 forget Pakistan鈥檚 neighbours: on one side Afghanistan, with the Taliban fighting hard to regain their ascendancy 鈥 and with plenty of sympathisers and supporters in Pakistan 鈥 and on the other side, India, still suspicious of its Muslim neighbour, and always worried about Islamist-inspired militancy in the disputed territory of Kashmir.
I had to smile when I read the New York Times editorial this morning on the honouring of the Dalai Lama in Washington. Here, it said, was a leader who has demonstrated a lifelong dedication to nonviolence and tolerance. Perhaps, suggested the Times wickedly, that dedication might rub off on some of the people he met during his stay in Washington. Might the White House perhaps ponder on one of his best-known maxims: 鈥淭hrough violence, you may solve one problem, but you sow the seeds for another.鈥
But the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal, the US鈥檚 highest civilian honour, to the 72-year-old spiritual leader of the Tibetans, was rather more than an opportunity for President Bush鈥檚 critics to have another go at him. It was also an opportunity for Beijing, yet again, to fulminate against a Buddhist monk who has almost single-handedly appeared to keep alive the flame of Tibetan nationalism.
Yet there鈥檚 a bit of a paradox here. Behind the scenes, the Chinese leadership has been putting out feelers to the Dalai Lama and his fellow 鈥渟plittists鈥 for years 鈥 so why shouldn鈥檛 Washington honour him? Or is Beijing right to see this as a not-too-subtle attempt by the US to put pressure on China and bolster the Tibetan leader鈥檚 negotiating hand?
I talked about all this to the Tibetan affairs scholar Robert Barnett of Columbia University last night. If you missed it, you can hear it here.
So what do we think President Putin is up to? Is he merely cocking a snook at Washington, is his visit simply a way of saying, in effect: "If Iran is your enemy, OK, it's our friend"?
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. For one thing, I don't believe the Kremlin is happy with the idea of a nuclear-capable Islamic republic on its doorstep. For another, Moscow, for all its grand-standing, has in fact been rather subtle, diplomacy-wise, when it comes to UN negotiations over sanctions against Tehran.
And what about the Iranians? Well, on Newshour today, our man in Tehran, Jon Leyne, told me that the Iranians don't trust Mr Putin one little bit. His way of looking at the world is not theirs, and they're perfectly well aware that Moscow could well be using them as a pawn in its game against Washington.
Both the Russians and the Iranians like to think of themselves as regional super-powers. (In Moscow's case, of course, they like to think of themselves as a global super-power as well.) There's as much potential for competition as for cooperation between them -- and I suspect we're going to need to keep a close eye on both capitals as they seek to strengthen their regional alliances.
But if you're in Moscow, Tehran or Washington, I'd be interested to know how it looks to you.
I鈥檝e been presenting The World Tonight and Newshour since 1989, and for nearly 20 years before that I was a news agency and newspaper journalist, first with Reuters and then with The Observer. For much of that time, I have concentrated on foreign affairs 鈥 I was a Reuters correspondent in Spain, France, and Italy, and in the mid-1980s I was The Observer鈥檚 Middle East correspondent, based in Jerusalem but travelling widely in the region.
For the 91热爆, I was in Moscow when the Soviet Union disappeared, in Germany when it was reunited, and in Hong Kong when it was handed back to China. I have also reported on elections in Bosnia, Iran, Nigeria, Russia, Turkey, Zimbabwe, and many more.
The more I travel, the more I realise how complex the world has become. But now, thanks to the internet revolution, we have a better chance than we ever had before to communicate with each other, often across huge distances, not only geographical, but also cultural and political.
Which is where this blog comes in. The idea is that we talk to other: I tell you what鈥檚 in my mind, and you tell me what鈥檚 in yours. If I hear or read something interesting, I鈥檒l tell you about it and provide a link. You can do the same. And with a bit of luck, we鈥檒l all learn something new and understand the world we live in a little better.
If you're interested in global reactions to the Nobel peace prize award to Al Gore, there's a useful round-up from the Global Voices website.
The New York Times has what seems to be the most authoritative account of what Israel attacked last month in Syria. It quotes American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports as saying the Israeli target was "a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel."
The full report is .
Is China becoming the new diplomatic super-power? It used to be the US, of course, but since the Iraq war, it's been almost impossible for Washington to make much headway on the international stage. So who was it who finally persuaded the North Koreans to sign up for a deal on abandoning their nuclear weapons programme? Who was it who leant on the Sudanese to persuade them to accept a hybrid UN-African Union force in Darfur? And who was it who persuaded the Burmese generals that at the very least they should accept a visit from the UN envoy, Ibrahim Gambari?
No one knows for sure, but maybe the answer in each case was China.
The suggests today that now the US is hoping that the Chinese may have a role to play in Iran. "They might just be the administration鈥檚 best hope for peacefully resolving the next big crisis on the horizon, Iran鈥檚 refusal to give up the right to enrich uranium. Or so some in the administration are hoping."
President Putin seems these days to be mainly interested in demonstrating to the US that the Russia can't be pushed around any more. He knows that a "strong Russia" policy goes down well with Russian voters, and although he won't be running for President next year, no one thinks he's bowing out. Indeed, one Russian commentator suggested on The World Tonight the other day that after Mr Putin has stood down as President, he'll then be re-elected as Prime Minister, and then within a matter of months, the new President will stand down, and hey presto ... Mr Putin will be back as President,
So I suspect we need to try to work out what China perceives to be its diplomatic role in the world. We know it wants next year's Olympics to be acknowledged as a huge success, but how far is it prepared to go to meet international concerns over its human rights record? And if Washington decides it needs China's help, in Iran or anywhere else, does that mean it'll ease up on the human rights stuff?
All thoughts welcomed ...
In case you're wondering what these famous Red Lines are, David Miliband has helpfully set them out in all their full splendour
Enjoy!
There's a thoughtful analysis by the Michigan-based Middle East analyst Juan Cole about the current state of relations between the US and Turkey, after a Congressional committee upset Ankara by voting to call "genocide" the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Armenians during the First World War. Given the tensions in the region, the relationship is a crucial one, and it seems to be heading for serious trouble. Washington isn't exactly thrilled at the prospect of Turkish troops engaging in "hot pursuit" operations across the border into northern Iraq as they try to deal with the fighters of the Kurdish separatist group the PKK. There's also an illuiminating account in the about the Washington politics and the lobbying that lie behind the Congressional vote.
UPDATE: Gideon Rachman of the FT has more interesting stuff on the lobbying efforts
... is thin these days, but there's a by Robert Semeniuk on opendemocracy.net. about a health project on the border with Thailand. Well worth a read.
You may or may not think that Al Gore was robbed of the US presidency. You may or may not think that he has done sterling work in alerting the world to the threat of climate change. But do you think he deserves half of this year's Nobel Peace Prize? Is campaigning about global warming a major contribution to world peace? The Nobel prize committee says it's "seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world鈥檚 future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind." You can read the full citation . But I wonder what you think.
If you haven't heard Hillary Clinton's laugh yet, click .
Why am I doing this? Because I think it might be fun, and because I think it might be useful in spreading ideas. There's so much going on, and none of us can keep track of it all. So I'll point you in the direction of stuff I've seen that I think is interesting, and I hope you will do the same. Today, for example, by the Israeli commentator and activist Daniel Levy is worth looking at -- it has the text of a long letter written by interested parties ahead of next month's international Middle East peace conference.
91热爆 漏 2014 The 91热爆 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
