Simon Shercliff

Pakistan's Friends

Posted at 16:44 28 August 2009 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[0]

The importance of Panther's Claw

Much has been said and written about the significant increase in fighting that British troops are currently undergoing in Helmand. We all mourn the losses we have suffered, and applaud the unstinting professionalism and bravery of the units involved. Back home in the UK a loud and fractious political debate has erupted over the provision of equipment to the troops, including the numbers of helicopters. But there has been much less of a focus on what is actually going on, and why.

Put simply, these classic military shaping and clearing operations are happening to allow around 80,000 Afghans to exist free from the shadow of the Taliban as the country prepares to vote in the Presidential elections on 20 August. Why is this so important? Because the more Afghans who can participate in deciding the future of their country, and who genuinely buy-in to the process, the more chance Afghanistan has to gather strength as a country and to resist encroachment by AQ and other militant groups.

As usual when our two militaries deploy together, the British operations are being conducted in close coordination with US forces, who are working to exactly the same agenda elsewhere in Helmand (bigger area, but with a lower density of people than where the British forces are). Crucially, they are also being conducted in partnership with the Afghan Security Forces - they are the ones who need to be seen defending their government and protecting their people.

But given that we are conducting a counter-insurgency campaign within a political strategy, the operations are being conducted along with a comprehensive, civilian-led effort to stabilise and develop (hold and build) the parts of Helmand province which most need it.

We all agree that there is no purely military solution to Afghanistan. What is happening in Helmand right now is a concrete example of the strategy President Obama and Prime Minister Brown have set out. We all want the military operations to take the minimum amount of time and resources possible. But they are an essential part of our agreed approach, which will set the foundations for a long-term, civilian-led aid relationship with Afghanistan.

Posted at 17:27 24 July 2009 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[1]

UK-US on Iran

Today, when they met at the G8 in L'Aquila, our Prime Minister and President Obama discussed, amongst other things, Iran. While the US and UK governments still share great concern over Iran's nuclear programme, that subject obviously topped the billing. But in addition the UK has the immediate problem of dealing with the completely unacceptable behaviour of the Iranian regime in continuing to detain a member of the British Embassy in Tehran on the patently ridiculous charge of conspiring to fuel the violence in the immediate post-election aftermath. We are grateful for the firm solidarity that President Obama expressed with us on the issue.

Posted at 19:02 09 July 2009 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[2]

Afghanistan and Pakistan - a combined approach

Today, our Prime Minister announced the British strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. In truth it was an update to the strategy that he first announced on December 12 2007. The situation has certainly moved on since then; one of the biggest changes has been the new US policy developed by President Obama. So we did need to review where we were going, and make the necessary changes. Those interested in the detail behind the PM's speech can read more in our White Paper which sets out the way forward.

The main themes in our approach should be familiar to people who have watched the policy debate unfold in the US over the last six months or so:

• while Afghanistan and Pakistan are very different countries, demanding very different approaches, we do need to ensure coherance and coordination between those approaches;

• the cancerous insurgency rife on both sides of the Durand Line can and will only be defeated by a comprehensive approach - with political, military and development strands; 

• ultimately it is the people and leadership of those two countries who must come out on top - we must therefore help and support both the people and their governing and security institutions to do just that;

• concentrating on the central government machinery is not enough - local (district and provincial) structures must also be built up and given the confidence to take ownership of their own futures;

• reconciliation, or at the least acknowledging that there will have to be some form of political settlement in the final analysis, is a key part of the approach;

• and finally - most importantly - we should all understand that this problem is a shared problem. It is not just a concern of the US, or the UK, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or indeed anyone else. It is in the interests of all of us to carve out a pathway to peace in that part of the world, for our own collective interests. So we should act as a team, with all the various players contributing whatever makes most sense to them, whether that is infantry, money, civilian mentors or even favourable commercial terms for Afghanistan's licit agricultural exports

Posted at 17:15 29 April 2009 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[1]