Simon Shercliff

Pakistan's Friends

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

Looking forward in Afghanistan

Posted at 09:33 19 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]

We promise to stay, and we promise to go

One small part of President Obama's much-heralded speech in Cairo this week hit squarely the two key planks of both the US and the UK's Afghanistan/Pakistan policy: 1) a promise to bring troops out as soon as we are confident that there is no threat eminating from" violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans [or Brits] as they possibly can"; and 2) a promise to continue building and strengthening our respective relationships with the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments and people, not least through long-term, non-military assistance programmes.

Obama said: "make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there". To the extent that we can work out accurately the motivations of the various parts of the insurgency in Afghanistan, we continually find that straightforward nationalism plays a part (just one part). The stationing of one country's troops on another country's soil has always, and almost universally, generated this characteristic, anywhere in the world. The people of Afghanistan, of whichever ethnic group, are no exception. We need to continue to make clear that we have no designs on any form of long-term, military occupation of these proud people.

But in the same breath, this policy needs to be balanced by another clear message - again President Obama brought it out in his speech. While the US and UK, and all our other allies, want to bring our combat troops home as soon as we can, we also want to emphasise that our governments are setting up a long-term commitment to support Afghanistan and Pakistan, politically and through our respective overseas aid departments. Obama said: "we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced". The UK has commited $811 million to Afghanistan over the next four years - this is one our our biggest overseas aid commitments. We need to reinforce the message at every turn that we are not going to cut and run. We will not leave both coutries to whatever fate befalls them, once we decide that the threat to us has subsided.

Posted at 17:49 05 June 2009 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[0]

Green Shoots?

20 March - Noruz - or the Iranian New Year, was always my favourite time of year in Iran. Sunshine, warmer temperatures, a long holiday and plenty of relaxed socialising with friends, not to mention the fact that it was the only time in the year when Tehran was not masked by a brown, clagging smog - all giving rise to positivity and optimism for the year to come. The Noruz period would see a "Haft Sin" (seven items beginning with the Farsi letter 'S') in every home - one of those items is always a small dish containing with new shoots of grass, wheat or barley, symbolising a fresh start. In the concrete jungle of Tehran, it was always heartening to see those green shoots taking root for a few weeks, even if it sometimes felt as though the dense, brown smog would eventually discolour and smother them.

So for this reason President Obama's Noruz message to the Iranian people resonated loudly with me, as I know it did to many Iranians. Perfectly pitched as it was, though, clearly it will take more than a three minute video address to overcome 30 years of mutual hostility. Karim Sadjadpour set out the context very well here - in particular by explaining that "it takes two to tango". The Iranian regime's first reaction to Obama's message was predictably defensive: it would be hard to imagine otherwise. But let's hope that these green shoots, planted by Obama, will properly take root, and fight their way through the smog which will be belched out by the regime in the coming months.

Posted at 11:29 24 March 2009 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[0]

A different way to speak to Muslims

Well, here we are. President Barack Hussein Obama. Like everyone else lucky enough to witness at first hand the inauguration in Washington DC today, I am pretty sure the memories will be with me for life. But aside from the huge crowds, the excited atmosphere, and the massively impressive pomp and ceremony, I thought President Obama’s inaugural speech hit some sensitive spots with great dexterity. Not just for Americans who had voted for him, or even for Americans who had not. But for all those out there in the world who might still be wondering in what direction the new President will take his country, he made his intention clear: “And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more”.
 
In Iran I am sure his every word will be pored over, by the regime as well as by the general population. Two aspects of his speech sparked my interest in this context. Firstly, according to speechwars.com, this was the first ever US Presidential inaugural address which made direct reference to Muslims: “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace”. It will be hard for a Friday prayers leader in Tehran to twist that into a direct attack from the “Zionist-Christian alliance” towards the Islamic world, although I am sure they will try.

The second line held out a conciliatory hand towards the wider Islamic world, using the sort of language that Iran often touts when it feels that the West is being unfair: “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect”. Then a warning that the ultimate arbiter on the quality of leadership bestowed upon a country is the people of that country themselves: “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”. Powerful stuff, and once again, it will be hard for America’s opponents to argue convincingly against that.

Posted at 11:34 21 January 2009 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[1]