William Hague, in an interview in today’s Financial Times, tries to build bridges with Europe, insisting a Tory government wouldn’t “pick a fight” with Europe if it won the election, and would be “highly active and activist in European affairs from day one”. With Britain’s fiscal crisis “a priority”, says Hague, “we have enough on our hands without an instant confrontation with the EU”.

His “EU olive branch”, as the FT puts it, comes as The Guardian reports Nicolas Sarkozy’s warning to the Conservatives over defence co-operation in Europe. The French president’s ire follows news the Tories plan to pull out of the European Defence Agency if elected.

M Sarkozy, who is due to meet David Cameron on Friday, will tell him that the Tories’ stance “risks forfeiting vital French co-operation on energy, defence and the economy” if a future Conservative government refuses to engage over the future of Europe.

The Americans have also voiced fears over the prospect of a hostile, Eurosceptic Tory government, with the National Journal reporting concern in Washington that a “self-absorbed” Tory government would be “a more tentative and less reliable” ally.

Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, told the Journal an anti-European British government would be viewed as a “liability” by the administration:

“For Britain to take an obstructionist approach within the E.U. will be seen more as a liability than as a badge of honor in Washington…

“You should not underestimate the visceral anti-European sentiment of his party … If Cameron doesn’t have a decent majority, it will create space for euro-skeptics [sic] to make trouble.”

Katinka Barysch, deputy director of the Centre for European Reform, added that Britain had been “spoiling for a fight” with Europe, a fight the Tories, in spite of the shadow foreign secretary’s apparent calm, may well engage in:

“The risk here is that the Conservatives will underestimate the reaction from the Continent … They will burn political bridges. Then there will be consequences on things that really matter, because they will have no goodwill.“

The biggest warning from the Journal, however, comes from Helen Wallace, a leading expert on the European Union, who believes Tory Europhobia could imperil the special relationship; if so:

“The U.S. will need another interlocutor in Brussels.”

Europe minister Chris Bryant, meanwhile, joined in the attacks on the Tories’ European policies, telling a Progress audience last night that:

“The Tories are still the same old euro-phobic dogma-driven obsessives that they always have been: Cameron is not in charge of his own destiny in relation to Europe but in hock to his back-benchers; Cameron has hand-picked for himself a set of extremely unsavoury allies in Europe; Cameron’s proposals on Europe are naïf, unworkable, undesirable and unachievable; and the Tory position is already damaging the national British interest.“

Yesterday, Left Foot Forward reported a joint attack on the Conservative party’s European policies from foreign secretary David Miliband and Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey, Miliband speaking of how “profoundly wrong” Hague “sees British influence being exercised, not just in Europe, but around the world”.

Last week foreign secretary David Miliband and Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey challenged William Hague on Conservative EU policy, arguing that a Conservative government would lessen British influence in the world.

The discussion was held as part of a major Chatham House project, ‘Rethinking the UK’s International Ambitions and Choices’.

Speaking on David Cameron and his shadow foreign secretary’s decision to take Conservative MEPs out of the mainstream centre-right grouping in the European Parliament, the three clashed on Hague’s contention that it is fanciful to suggest that you cannot work with other nations in Europe “as long as you set out in the right way and have the right agenda”, and that “the niceties of European political parties and alliances are a minor consideration by comparison”.

The difficulties of this view were highlighted by Miliband’s argument that the ability to have influence in Europe depends on the quality of your ideas as well as the quality of your alliances:

“… and honestly to believe that if you’re outside the mainstream you’ve got more influence than if you’re inside the mainstream simply doesn’t add up.”

Furthermore, Miliband recalled that European foreign ministers at the monthly Foreign Affairs Council meetings have told him that they see the Conservative move as a “symbol” of how “profoundly wrong” Hague “sees British influence being exercised, not just in Europe, but around the world”.

Indeed, as Davey insisted, Conservative policy would weaken British influence worldwide.

Pointing out that the Chinese are incredibly impressed by the development of the single market because they look at economic aspects very importantly, he declared that:

“The fact that one of the main British parties isn’t able to influence really directly, hands-on … European legislation on the single market and its relations in trade policy with the rest of the world … does a disservice.”

Nor, Davey reminded us, is Conservative policy welcome in the US. In fact the Obama administration has consistently encouraged the Conservatives in the direction of Europe, finding it strangely out of tune with the President’s rectification of the unilateralism of the Bush years.

However it was Miliband who made the strongest case for Britain’s active involvement in the EU and the differences between the parties, arguing that:

“If we want to avoid a G2 world, then you need to build up European foreign policy strength because we’re not going to have a G2 plus Britain…

“We should at least be honest that there is a profound difference on this European issue. It is a consistent position that William and his party has held but I think it’s a profoundly damaging one.”

Our guest writer is Elliott Fox

Jacob Zuma’s state visit to the UK finished on Friday evening and, rather than the World Cup, it was the future of diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe which stood out as the key issue from the three-day trip.

While Mr Zuma and the prime minister debated the best path to aiding the recovery of Zimbabwe’s fragile economy, Tory MP Nigel Evans accused the UK government of “pussyfooting” while handing out aid to Robert Mugabe. A Zimbabwe expert, however, defended the UK’s measured approach “for the sake of ordinary people in Zimbabwe”.

The president of South Africa has been the key mediator between Robert Mugabe’s regime and the international community. He pleaded for the easing of EU sanctions against Zimbabwe, saying they prevented the fragile coalition between President Robert Mugabe and his opponent, prime minister Morgan Tsvangirai, from succeeding.

Gordon Brown, though, stood firm and restated the conditions under which sanctions might be lifted:

“We must see movement from what is a unity, transitional government, to free and fair elections.”

While defending the sanctions, however, the government has adopted a ‘softly softly’ approach to its diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. It gives about £60 million in aid to the country, a bit more than half going to AIDS-related health programmes.

Furthermore, development minister Gareth Thomas announced during a hearing of the international development committee last week that the department for international development (DFID) was open to increase the share of the aid budget going directly to government ministries if it could help support the stability of the transition government.

He said:

“Our support is designed to enable the Office of the Prime Minister to carry out the sort of normal functions that a head of state’s office would, including oversight of the budget, making sure that the different ministries are following through on the government’s agreed work plan, and helping to resolve disputes between government departments were they to happen.”

Unconvinced by the approach, committee member Nigel Evans confronted the minister on a new law in Zimbabwe which requires big businesses to be at least 51 per cent black owned. The pair clashed over whether it is the role of the UK government to call the policy racist.

When the minister said the government should avoid “explosive language”, Nigel Evans insisted:

“But clearly it is a racist policy. If any other country did this sort of thing, we would be banging the table and saying ‘This is racist’.”

Thomas replied:

“I appreciate, Mr Evans, that you might want me to use particular phrases to describe a particular set of policies but, with respect, I am not going to do that.

“The broad message is that there has been progress in terms of the economy. We do not want that progress put at risk.”

Speaking to Left Foot Forward afterwards, Evans reiterated his message that the government was wasting its time:

“Diplomacy is lost on Mugabe, and this sort of pussyfooting sends all the wrong signals to other countries contemplating the same thing.”

In contrast, Professor Stephen Chan, an expert on Zimbabwe and international relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), defended the government’s attitude, saying it was the only viable diplomatic route:

“President Zuma was in town pleading for exactly this kind of measured, non-condemnatory approach. Whether we like it or not, the days of rhetoric are over in this case, and a grubby compromise is important for the sake of ordinary people in Zimbabwe.

“Our moral and political fights have been over and above their suffering – and this in itself might be termed immoral and racist.”

Meanwhile, Mugabe used a press conference ahead of Zuma’s visit to announce he will be endorsing David Cameron at the general election.

With big economic and social issues dominating debate, it is perhaps unsurprising that there hasn’t been much discussion of international development so far in the run-up to the election.

In fact, it feels like there is a pretty strong cross-party consensus on this issue.

All three main parties are signed up to meeting the UN target of giving 0.7% of GDP as aid; and the Department for International Development (DFID), which still thinks of itself as the new kid on the block, is looking more and more like a secure and long-term part of the machinery of government.

But behind the public consensus, there are real issues of policy at stake in the election. Whoever wins, there will be a massive squeeze on public expenditure. This makes the politics of increasing aid budgets to meet the UN target even more difficult.

Expect to see more aid routed outside DFID to reduce tensions between departments. Expect also to see changes in what counts as aid, with pressures to include more security-related expenditures in countries like Afghanistan, and more climate spending as the search for a global deal continues.

Official monitoring of aid spending takes place via the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, which defines what spending can and cannot count, but it is fair to say that this definition leaves considerable flexibility for governments to count spending that the public might not easily recognise as ‘aid’.

The UK government set itself a higher standard in the 2002 International Development Act, which limits DFID’s spending to activities which reduce poverty and promote sustainable development. A new ippr report argues that the government should broaden the scope of the 2002 Act to ensure that all spending in other departments that is counted as aid meets the same standards.

At the same time, DFID should have more non-aid money in its budget to spend more flexibly, particularly in post-conflict and conflict situations like Afghanistan.

There is also a clear difference of opinion between the parties on the role of DFID vis-à-vis the rest of government, with voices from the foreign policy and security communities in particular suggesting that DFID should be re-merged with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

Labour made a significant break from the past in establishing DFID as an independent department; the Conservatives would keep DFID separate, but have sent strong signals that they would like its role to be more clearly supportive of the FCO.

DFID has had good reasons to hold itself apart from the rest of government to establish a development policy independent of the UK’s commercial and strategic interests.  However, the same independence makes it harder for DFID to engage effectively with Whitehall.

While the UK has made significant progress in achieving coherence between development and other objectives in some areas (e.g. trade, climate change), tensions remain unresolved in a range of others (e.g. migration, corruption), and joined-up government hasn’t always been a reality on the ground in places like Afghanistan.

The benefits of having DFID on an equal footing with the FCO clearly outweigh the costs, but this does not mean that DFID should stand apart from the rest of government.  Making government policy and practice coherent for international development is the real challenge facing UK development policy in the coming years.

Tensions between the UK’s international poverty reduction priorities and other government objectives need to be tackled head on, but this is going to require a willingness from politicians to talk about the difficult bits of development – conflict, trade, migration and corporate corruption - as well as education, health and water.

• The ippr report “Policy coherence and the future of the UK’s international development agenda” is available now.

As the prime minister gives evidence to the Iraq inquiry today, accused by leading military figures of underfunding the armed forces, it is worth looking at yesterday’s House of Commons defence select committee report, which confirms long held suspicions that the Ministry of Defence is wasting hundreds of millions of pounds each year in poor procurement and planning practices.

The report accuses MoD witnesses of giving “disingenuous” information on the £21bn budget shortfall, saying that officials’ answers were:

“At best confused and unhelpful and at worst deliberately obstructive.”

The committee specifically criticised delays and cost increases in MoD plans to spend £16bn on the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), a programme to design a new generation of military vehicles and deploy thousands of these machines on operations in years to come.

As committee chair James Arbuthnot said:

“We have tried on many occasions in the past to elicit details about Fres from the MoD without ever receiving clear answers. We conclude, with regret, that the MoD has none to give.”

The Obama Administration last year cancelled its own Future Combat Systems project after repeated cost increases and technical setbacks.

The report was highly critical of decreases in the defence research and technology budget with Defence Management Journal reporting planned cut backs from £540m in 2007/08 to £471m in 2009/10. The budget is expected to decrease further in 2010/11 to just £439 million in comparison to a spending level 15 years ago of £947m 2008/09 terms.

With regard to the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, the report confirmed that “the trident decision was being delayed for a few months” and that it is “more likely than not” that this decision will be taken after the general election.

Our guest writer is Jack Lundee, webmaster at Everything Left

On Tuesday, January 12th, a devastating earthquake rattled the small island nation of Haiti, changing the landscape of the country forever. This tragedy has allowed national governments, charitable organizations, and average people to come together as a cohesive unit to bring relief to a nation that is in urgent need of it. Consequently, it is vital to understand what has been done in the area and most importantly, what more there is to do.

When the earthquake first struck, the humanitarian effort was almost instantaneous. The United Nations immediately sent an extra 3,000 troops and workers, the World Bank donated $100m to the area, and, in the private sector, some celebrities even donated as much as $3m of their own money.

Relief organizations big and small have given food, water, and manpower to do whatever they can to help. Yet, the country is still in desperate need of trucks to haul out rubble and basic medical supplies to help the wounded. The situation in Haiti is so dire that these efforts have had as many failures as successes. In terms of what can be done, the surface hasn’t even been scratched; this is a sentiment that no one understands better than former President Bill Clinton.

The former President joined up with former President George W. Bush to create the Clinton Bush Haiti Relief Fund, but has also had direct involvement with relief efforts through his foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative. With the help of the man behind the CGI, Doug Band, the operation has been at the forefront of international aid and philanthropy since its inception in 2005. The CGI has helped more than 10 million children gain access to better education, granted more than $150 million in medical research, and has provided treatment to over 30 million people for tropical diseases.

Although it’s still early, there’s one major element of restoration that has been overlooked: construction. Haiti’s infrastructure has been shattered and there is an open question over whether the country can afford all the costs of repair and reconstruction. But the rebuilding process provides an opportunity to meet modern day Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and to approach this in a “greener” sense. Organizations like Architecture for Humanity will make this possible. The nonprofit design services firm aim to build “a more sustainable future through the power of professional design.”

The tragedy in Haiti has shown the worst of what Mother Nature can do, but has also shown the best of the human spirit, whether it be through philanthropists and nonprofits or help from the simple individual. People from around the world came together to bring help and aid however they could. Getting this struggling nation back on its feet will be a battle, but with the help of organizations like the CGI and AFH, it will be a battle with an undoubtedly positive outcome. Nevertheless, there is still much to be done to not just dig Haiti out of the rubble, but to bring hope back to its people.

Tuesday night’s Newsnight defence debate, “A fighting future“, demonstrated the gulf between steadfast defence of the status quo by Labour and the Tories, and the voices for change from outside the political bubble. Veterans, defence experts and third parties all called for a reappraisal in the most stark terms of what Britain’s military mission should be in the 21st century and what resources are required.

Both defence secretary Bob Ainsworth and his shadow Liam Fox reasserted their commitment to the renewal of Trident, but as Newsnight’s defence correspondent Mark Urban said:

“The things the armed forces are least likely to need are the most expensive – Trident is the biggest and best example.”

This in turn begs the question of how can the UK continue to maintain a full spectrum warfare defence capability that covers all eventualities (land, sea, air and nuclear) at a time when both our forces and our budget are severely overstretched?

Throughout the debate the defence establishment struggled to make the case for the status quo as exemplified by former Air Chief Marshall Sir Clive Loader’s plaintive defence of the decsion to invest billions in the Joint Strike Fighter on the grounds that air superiority fighters are needed “to deter the unknown risks of the future” despite his own admission that the last RAF dogfight was during the Falklands war.

Critisicm of the status quo came from both right and left with conservative columnist Simon Jenkins arguing that:

“The game is up: our distorted defence commitment means we have the wrong kit.”

But it was Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey who reframed the Trident renewal debate, saying that rather then a false choice between Britain as a nuclear power today or unilateral nuclear disarmament tomorrow:

“This nuclear deterrent (Trident) keeps us a nuclear power for another 20 years, the decision is whether we want one for 30 years after that.”

Adding to the pressure on Trident renewal was yesterday’s comments by Conservative party defence adviser Sir Richard Dannatt that:

“It [Trident] might not be right in 5 or 10 years time.”

In response, defence expert Ian Kearns, a senior fellow of the Royal United Services Institute, said:

“General Dannatt’s comments are potentially significant because they recognise that we are at a moment of strategic flux. We could move into a world where there are many more states with nuclear capability; or we could be moving into one where there is significant nuclear disarmament.

“What the UK should do is give itself the maximum amount of time and flexibility to judge the situation before it sinks billions into the submarine contracts for Trident.”

The most poignant note of the debate was raised by veteran’s campaigner Dianne Dernie who expressed her concern that the government was making available “huge sums of money for Trident” at a time when:

“‘Help for Heroes’ and other charities are funding the double amputees to go to Oklahoma to get decent prosthetic limbs.”

Mr Ainsworth vigourously disagreed, stating:

“There is first class state-of-the-art prosethics available to our injured personnel at Hedley Court. They deserve the best and they get the best.”

Our guest writer is Felix Grenfell Bozek, an intern at the Fabian Society

Tomorrow’s NATO Strategic Concept Review will invite the populations of member states to input their opinion to the debate in an online discussion forum, in an effort to make the alliance more transparent.

This has not staved off criticism the decision making process is too restricted to NATO officials.

On Tuesday the group of experts, twelve appointed group members including former defence secretary Geoff Hoon, will conduct the last seminar of the ‘Reflection Phase’ (the first phase of the three phase Concept Review) in Washington.

The seminar, which will engage officials such as NATO strategic commands and military representatives, will focus on forces, structures and capabilities and will include a discussion of the nuclear strategy in Europe.

As with the previous three seminars, an online discussion for the public to voice concerns and raise questions to NATO experts on the themes of the seminar was held a couple of weeks prior.

Such events are part of the NATO public outreach programme which has sought to consult the public on the Strategic Review through an online discussion forum.

The main points from the public are responded to on the website and are then, in the words of Secretary General Anders Foch Rasmussen:

“Fed into the decision making process here in the Alliance.”

The idea to open up the debate to the public has coincided with the appointment of Rasmussen, former prime minister of Denmark, in August 2009.

It seeks to remedy the democratic deficit inherent in NATO processes and organisations, which have limited accountability to democratic domestic institutions.

Last December, in a further sign of the opening up of NATO, Left Foot Forward took part in the alliance’s first ever bloggers’ briefing.

There have, however, been criticisms that this new NATO initiative has not fundamentally changed the nature of the review. A roundtable on nuclear weapons policies and the NATO Strategic Concept Review co-hosted by Des Browne, convener of the Top Level Group and Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, Secretary General of the Pugwash conferences in the House of Commons in January concluded that:

“The consultation process and seminars give an appearance, but not reality of open debate. In fact, the process is closed to all but a handful of officials and experts.”

Similarly Ian Davis, a human security and arms control consultant, wrote for a British American Security Information Council Commentary in August that:

“The public consultation could have been clearer, more integrated into the overall process, more independent, and conducted over a longer time-frame.

“Nonetheless, the new Secretary General has cast the door ajar. It is now up to concerned citizens to walk through it.”

Our guest writer is Elliott Fox, a student at City University

Sri Lanka’s newly re-elected president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, is facing mounting pressure from the international community over accusations of human rights abuses, war crimes and dictatorship; shadow defence secretary Liam Fox visited him three times last year – at Sri Lanka’s expense.

Last year, Fox attended Rajapaksa’s party convention. It was his third visit of the year, having already gone in March and August, each time at the invitation – and expense – of the Sri Lankan government. The circumstances of these visits are unclear.

Only for his March trip is it indicated in parliament’s register of Members’ Interests that he was travelling in an official capacity. Furthermore, a week after his November visit, he said in parliament that:

“As members of the European Union, we have to be careful not to lecture too much or give too few incentives in a country that is beginning to move very much in the right direction.”

He did not mention he was at the president’s party convention the week before.

At last week’s prime minister’s questions, Labour MP Barry Gardiner asked whether:

“The arrest of General Fonseka in Sri Lanka is yet another indication that the regime of President Rajapaksa is sliding into dictatorship.”

This is a vital question on a critical topic, but parliament should clearly be asking many more:

• Why did Liam Fox go to Sri Lanka three times to meet its president last year, while William Hague did not go once? In what official capacity did he make his August and November visits?

• Why did he attend Rajapaksa’s national party convention? Can he ensure this did not undermine ongoing multilateral efforts at defending human rights, at a critical time for Sri Lanka?

• Why has he been pointedly discreet about these visits – putting out a press release for his visit to Afghanistan last year, but not one in three trips to Sri Lanka?

• It emerged last week that Liam Fox has been accepting large donations from defence firms; can he ensure that this does not interfere with his official responsibilities as shadow secretary of state for defence, and as a representative of the UK government, when he makes repeated visits to government officials in war-torn countries?

The new European Union trade commissioner, Karel de Gucht, announced on Monday that Sri Lanka would be suspended from GSP+ (Generalised System of Preferences) treatment - a privileged trade agreement it operates with developing countries - because its government was in breach of human rights conventions.

Although the European Commission’s report was completed by October 2009, Rajapaksa’s reputation abroad was not helped by the arrest of his main opponent in the January presidential elections, Sarath Fonseka, only two weeks ago.

Fonseka is a retired army general who led the Sri Lankan army to victory over the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009. He claims the election results were rigged and said he would be ready to testify against the government at an international war crimes tribunal.

The case for such a prosecution is slowly stacking up. The European Commission’s report, referring to previous reports by the UN and independent experts, states that although the Sri Lankan government stalled the investigation process by repeatedly refusing to submit itself to fact-finding visits:

“The evidence shows that unlawful killings, perpetrated by police, soldiers and paramilitary groups, are a major problem.”

In December 2009, Channel 4 further reported that a mobile phone video obtained by Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (JDS) - showing the summary execution of suspected LTTE soldiers by army forces - had been declared authentic by a forensic specialist, contrary to claims by Rajapaksa’s government.

This denial was condemned last month by the UN Special Rapporteur for Sri Lanka, Philip Alston.

UPDATE 16.33

Liam Fox has been in Sri Lanka again this week and has been intervening in the local controversy over the trial of General Fonseka. The country’s Daily Mirror reports that:

“Liam Fox, yesterday expressed his view that former opposition candidate General Sarath Fonseka be given a civil trial. “It is my strong view that the General should be tried in a civil court where the charges against him can be tested through all the vigor that the law can muster,” Mr. Fox said after a meeting with Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama at the Foreign Ministry.”

In 2005, the 15 EU countries who are members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) committed to spend 0.51 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2010. Today, the OECD reported that Britain was among a number of countries to have met that commitment but centre-right governments across Europe are falling behind.

Other DAC countries made varying ODA commitments for 2010, and most, but not all, will fulfil them:

• The United States pledged to double its aid to sub-Saharan Africa between 2004 and 2010.

• Canada aimed to double its 2001 International Assistance Envelope level by 2010 in nominal terms.

• Australia aimed to reach $A4 billion.

• New Zealand plans to achieve an ODA level of $NZ 600 million by 2012-13.

The OECD projects that all four countries appear on track to meet these objectives. Meanwhile, Norway will maintain 1 per cent GNI spending, and Switzerland will likely reach 0.47 per cent of its GNI. The net result is that overseas aid will reach record levels in 2010, a 35 per cent increase since 2004. But despite this success there will be a significant shortfall as several major rich countries – including three centre-right led countries: France, Germany and Italy – have missed their 0.51 per cent targets, while Japan is $4 billion short of the $10 billion it pledged.

Overall, this means that while aid has increased by $27 billion on 2004 levels, OECD countries are $21 billion short of what they promised in 2005. This is partly because lower-than-expected GNI because of the economic crisis, but it is mainly because certain rich countries have failed to meet their commitments. Eckhard Deutscher, Chair of the DAC, noted that:

“Aid has increased strongly as 16 donors have honoured their commitments. But it will still fall considerably short of what was promised. These commitments were made and confirmed repeatedly by heads of governments and it is essential that they be met to the full extent.”

International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander said:

“Keeping our aid promises has never been more important as the world emerges from an economic crisis that has dragged millions of people back into poverty. I am very pleased that the OECD recognises that the UK is honouring pledges made at Gleneagles in 2005 – particularly on doubling aid to Africa.

“It is disappointing that with only five years left to meet the Millennium Development Goals there is such a shortfall in the levels of aid needed to meet them. It is now vital for other nations to step up to the plate. All governments are currently facing difficult choices but commitments made to the world’s poorest people must not become empty promises.”

Max Lawson, Oxfam senior policy adviser:

“Overseas aid is more important than ever in the midst of an economic crisis that is pushing millions more people into poverty. The missing $21 billion could pay for every child to go to school, and could save the lives of 2 million of the poorest mothers and children.”

The shortfalls of aid commitments will reinforce the calls by campaigners for a Robin Hood Tax. The Financial Transaction Tax would offer a more regular and reliable source of vital funds needed to provide the sort of long-term predictable aid needed to support developing countries build poverty alleviating institutions such as national health and education systems.

The NATO/Afghan coalition in the Helmand province reported the first significant resistance of Operation Moshtarak today. It is foreseeable that Taleban fighters can and will use asymmetrical means of warfare – snipers, booby-traps, and civilian-shields, among others – to slow down the advance and sap coalition resources. In these circumstances, it is worth taking a moment to assess how the success of the operation should be judged.

Fortunately, counterinsurgency guru David Kilcullen, a former Australian infantry office and civilian adviser to the US military on COIN operations, is on hand to provide some insight. A bullet-point summary of his recent paper on evaluating counterinsurgency ops appears in five parts on US foreign policy analyst Tom Ricks’ blog. The entire series of short summaries is valuable and important reading. A few salient points:

In the first entry, on how not to evaluate a counterinsurgency campaign, Kilcullen decries the use of body counts, military accessibility, attacks on coalition forces (SIGACTS), and “input metrics” (number of patrols conducted, projects initiated, etc.), among others, as useful data points.  It is worth keeping in mind that some variation of these often leads media reporting on military operations.

The second entry, how to evaluate the effect of operations on the civilian population, lists eleven metrics, only two of which – voluntary reporting (good tips on insurgent activities from locals) and IEDs reported versus found (again, a measure of locals willingness to give good intelligence) – can be measured during the coming days or weeks of Operation Moshtarak.  The other nine cannot or should not be measured before an interval of weeks or months.

The fourth entry, on evaluating Afghan police and military, is perhaps most relevant to Operation Moshtarak.  It features twelve success metrics, of which eight can be evaluated during the span of the operation: kill ration (as distinct from body count); win/loss ratio; kill vs. wound/capture ratio; four mini-metrics – night/small-unit/dismounted ops and duration of operation; combined action operations; driving technique (really); reliance on air and artillery support; pattern-setting and telegraphing moves to the enemy; and possession of higher ground at dawn.

Ricks points out that it is significant that Kilcullen leaves how to evaluate the enemy until last (COIN ops being at least as much as about the relationship between the coalition military and the civilian population as between the coalition and the insurgents). Most of the metrics are about gauging the effectiveness and nature of the insurgent force, but two stand out for judging the success of Operation Moshtarak – kill/capture v. surrender, which indicates insurgent morale, and mid-level insurgent casualties, the valuable officers, trainers, specialists, etc, who can turn a band of Kalashnikov-wielding amateurs into an insurgent force. Kilcullen points out that lower-level insurgents should ideally be captured alive, as they may later be candidates for reintegration.

Those are the immediate, primarily military indicators by which Operation Moshtarak might be evaluated. That, of course, does not tell the whole story. Indeed, as has been written on this blog, the actual success of Operation Moshtarak, and the entire Afghan operation, lies in a sustained commitment to the civilian population and its government. For those metrics, see the nine population metrics not listed above, and the entirety of the third entry, which deals with evaluating government officials. These will tell the real story of success or failure in Afghanistan, and it will be some time before any trajectory there can be determined.

Initial indicators are that Operation Moshtarak, ISAF’s (International Security and Assistance Force) current surge into south-eastern Afghanistan, has met with little resistance. This is to be expected.

Forewarned that more than 6,000 US, British, Danish, Estonian and Afghan soldiers would be landing in waves of helicopters into the Marjah area of central Helmand, Taleban resistance melted away.

This is exactly the outcome that General Stanley McChrystal will have hoped for. This operation is the flagship of President Obama’s renewed commitment to Afghanistan and McChrystal’s population-centric military strategy.

Having identified the Marjah area as not only a centre of Helmand’s population and infrastructure, but also of the poppy trade which funds the insurgency, McChrystal will now look to hold and build on the ground that the troops have taken.

This is where the real test of ISAF and the Afghan authorities will come.

Many of Marjah’s and its environs 80,000 inhabitants have already left their homes for safety in other towns and villages. ISAF must now convince them that it is safe to return, and if and when they do, they must also provide real signs of improvement in their daily lives.

‘Super hot’ Quick Impact Projects, like the refurbishment of mosques and distribution of aid, will be identified and implemented to influence those who do decide to return.

The Afghan National Army and Police will establish and maintain their presence in order to project their government’s writ into a previously Taleban-controlled district.

For the first time since operations began in 2001, ISAF troops are fully resourced for their task and prepared to stay for its duration. For the first time they have the correct troop density to deliver success.

It is hoped that these factors will prove conducive to political reconciliation with those who had previously aligned themselves with the Taleban. Perhaps Marjah can become an example to the rest of Afghanistan that the Afghan Government is ready and able to govern them.

But when the summer fighting season arrives the Taliban will attempt re-infiltrate. They will try to lay improvised explosive devices on Marjah’s tracks and roads. They will attack ISAF and the Afghan authorities where and when they can, whilst exposing their Muhajideen to minimum risk.

They will endeavour to influence and coerce the population. The farmers will still grow their poppy crops where they can because they are paid more for them than other crops. And the Taliban will continue to tax their profits and buy their radio controlled detonation devices.

Marjah is just one town of many in Afghanistan that lacks government influence. For McChrystal’s strategy to work, and for the influence of the Afghan government to expand, such operations will need to be repeated and maintained throughout Afghanistan.

The operational art must be linked to the strategic aim. This involves an enduring commitment in soldiers, resources and political will, long after the glares of the media’s cameras have gone.

Most important is a commitment in time. And time is the one thing Afghan’s have much of and ISAF little.

Although Moshtarak may be the largest operation yet undertaken by ISAF in Afghanistan, it does not represent any great change in the military approach to Afghanistan’s insurgency – McChrystal’s population-centric approach is nothing new.

What is new is the amount of resources being allocated to enable it. But without the political will for an enduring campaign, operations like those being undertaken in Marjah at present remain strategically futile.

For 40 years, the World Economic Forum in Davos has been the pre-eminent meeting of minds; but frankly, it’s become unsurprising, and fairly glum. The takeaway from the summit in January was that “trust in governments, corporations and above all banks has become as elusive as sure footing on the icy streets of this Alpine resort,” as the New York Times put it.

Not exactly visionary, encouraging or likely to change the world.

It’s time to bring some fresh energy to the global dialogue. At the inaugural One Young World summit from February 8th to 10th in London, hundreds of young leaders from 192 nations will take up the most pressing issues facing the international community: interfaith dialogue, the environment, global health and the changing media; inspiring hope and change.

As they draft resolutions on our biggest challenges, they will be guided by the likes of Kofi Annan, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Sir Bob Geldof, Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus and former president of Peru Alejandro Toledo.

The event is organised by Euro RSCG Worldwide, who have done other projects that harness the power of young people to change the world, like the Tck Tck Tck initiative for climate justice. David Jones, CEO of parent company Havas, explained the summit’s goals:

“If the world’s leaders can’t actually make the right decisions and get us to the right place … then given how clever some young people are today, we can actually use them to exert pressure on the world’s leaders to do the right things.”

The theme for Davos this year was “Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild.” One Young World delegates will be doing the same things with one important difference – for them, these acts are second nature.

Young leaders today are actively engaged with the world around them, fully aware of how global issues affect their local communities, energetic and passionate about their own power to effect social change.

This is the real-time generation. People in their 20s don’t remember a world with no internet. They have a wealth of ways to find out what’s going on right now, told from countless points of view. Empowered by their ability to connect with each other fast, they’re forcing companies to clean up their act and be transparent with consumers.

It’s not a “Me Generation” but a “We Generation”, guided by optimistic values and an awareness of how interconnected we all are. They have a greater willingness to work together, to compromise in the best possible sense, and a deeper commitment to peace.

Participation in One Young World doesn’t have to be in the flesh. Our community has been growing for months on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and WAYN and has dedicated bloggers around the globe, encouraging debate and spurring action. The summit will be open globally through online streaming and real-time updates.

• To get involved, join the Facebook group, submit questions to be raised at the summit, and follow the dialogue on oneyoungworld.com

Our guest writer is Marian Salzman, president of Euro RSCG Worldwide PR, North America, and one of the world’s leading trendspotters

Davina McCall, Mariella Frostrup, Annie Lennox, Richard Wilson and Meera Syal were among the big names launching a new poverty campaign today, the fifth anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s Make Poverty History speech in Trafalgar Square.

“Forty years ago the UK made a promise to the world’s poor – to spend just 0.7 per cent of our national income on helping poor countries develop. We now have a chance to make that promise a reality, not just for today but for future generations.

“GlobalPovertyPromise.com is our opportunity to show that we keep our promises, even during difficult times. Whether it’s helping Haiti through a disaster or participating in the long term development of Africa the British public has a proud tradition of looking out for those less fortunate, let’s keep it up.”

Five years ago Nelson Mandela’s speech in London ahead of the Gleneagles summit launched the Make Poverty History campaign; today the Department for International Development is publishing an update of the progress the UK has made against the targets set.

Labour has tripled the UK’s aid budget and is committed to spending 0.7% of the UK’s Gross National Income on aid from 2013, with the Overseas Development Bill which was introduced to Parliament last month, while the Conservatives have refused to say they would introduce such a law.

Aid groups are concerned that Tory plans for international development could mean large sums will be diverted from tackling poverty.

• Sign up to the Gobal Poverty Promise and show your support.

Today’s defence green paper, “Adaptability and Partnership: Issues for a Strategic Defence Review”, asks the right questions on the future of defence policy even as Secretary of State Bob Ainsworth gives support to the wrong answers.

Mr Ainsworth called today for “tough choices” in defence spending and warned that in the future Britain would not be able to “insure against every risk”.

Director of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Michael Clarke praised the paper for asking “the big questions” about the armed forces’ futures, saying the paper asks:

“What sort of country does the UK want to be in the world? How do we adapt to all the very new challenges?”

He added that:

“The war of 2003 in Iraq was very different to the war in 1991 and the war in Afghanistan is different again. So it’s an attempt to say ‘how do we adapt to these things?’ and what are we trying to do?”

But the paper deserves criticism for its failure to, at the very least, signal a willingness to follow through on these big questions with big answers and so runs the risk of ducking the very “tough choices” that Mr Ainsworth rightly says lie ahead.

Whilst the green paper should not be expected to have detailed what should be cut in the future and what should be kept, the government has already indicated a determination to maintain the major procurement projects like the Joint Strike Fighter, the super-carrier project and Trident.

As Liberal Democrat frontbencher Sarah Teather said on “The World at One” this lunchtime:

“Isn’t it ridiculous to have a strategic defence review and have the only thing not under consideration be the most expensive item – Trident.”

Furthermore, the Government’s fixation with big-ticket spending comes at a cost to less glamorous but nevertheless vital spending like that represented by the Defence College at Shrivenham.

The programme also reported the Government was planning deep cuts down to “just three junior researchers” at the College’s much admired Research & Assessment Office, which has played an impressive behind-the-scenes role in conflict analysis from Russia to the Middle East.

On a broader scale, as a recent RUSI report has said, a failure to address defence spending on large scale procurement projects in a responsible fashion could lead to a 20 per cent cut in the number of armed forces personnel.

Beyond mere talk of “tough choices” and “big questions”, the defence discussion must now move on to detailed answers.

In short, what is now needed is a major debate on Britain’s defence future in which threats, resources and choices are considered in an open and honest fashion and all options and programmes are on the table from future force structure to major procurement spending.

As ippr security expert Andy Hull told Left Foot Forward:

“The Government’s defence green paper properly reflects the evolving global security environment – what is important now though is that the post-election Strategic Defence Review should take place as part of a wider Strategic Review of Security.

“And it should precede multi-billion-pound decisions on the purchase of military hardware – not be pre-empted by them.”

The Prime Minister’s commitment yesterday to the construction of two new aircraft carriers is good news for defence sector jobs but bad news for both Britain’s defence budget and Britain’s defence strategy.

The Government is now in danger of eschewing the warnings of its own senior budgetary and strategic advisors. Defence economist Malcolm Chalmers’ recent RUSI report has warned of the grave dangers that await front line troops in terms of cuts if the government refused to take tough choices on big ticket items like the aircraft carriers or the joint strike fighter project. Similarly, the new Chief of the General Staff, General Sir David Richards, has likewise urged the government to make long-term choices between major procurement projects and front line resourcing.

The potential for a strategic redefining of Britain’s interests and consequent resource allocation was outlined in the recent ippr report ‘Opportunities in an age of austerity‘, in which former Defence Chief Lord Guthrie and noted security expert Andy Hull argued that:

“In concrete terms this will have to mean, above all, not developing new weapons to fight old wars. The new 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers, the planes to fly off them and the destroyers to protect them must be firmly in the frame for cuts. The super-carriers are currently costing £5bn (already more than £1bn more than originally predicted).”

This approach meets with favour even from military historian Max Hasting who recently observed:

“Opponents of draconian cuts in navy and RAF strengths cite the importance of a balanced strategy, which addresses potential future threats as well as current commitments, dominated by Afghanistan. The problem with this approach, admirably sensible in theory, is that it threatens to leave Britain’s forces balanced only in inadequacy.”

With the Conservative Party in disarray over its own cuts programme now is not the time for the Labour Government to prioritise defence contractor-pleasing procurement projects over a genuine strategic opportunity to set British defence on a firm and lasting footing.

The Scotland on Sunday newspaper has reported that a group of Scottish National Party MSPs are calling for Tony Blair to stand trial in Scotland over his decision to invade Iraq. It comes after the former Prime Minister’s appearance before the Iraq Inquiry on Friday.

In a letter sent to Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini QC, SNP backbench MSP, Bill Wilson calls for her to investigate whether Blair breached international law in invading Iraq. He continued:

“and, should you find the evidence against them compelling, prosecute the former UK Prime Minister, Anthony Charles Linton Blair, and others complacent in the invasion in Iraq.”

Mr Wilson used recent findings by a committee of inquiry in support of his case. This committee, chaired by a former Dutch Supreme Court, Willibrord Davids concluded that UN Resolution 1441 did not constitute a legal mandate for launching military action. The Scotland on Sunday further reports that the Lord Advocate and Scotland’s prosecuting authority, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is now examining the case.

Mr Wilson argues that the terms Lord Advocate’s Reference No.1 0f 2000 – which concluded that, “A rule of customary international law is a rule of Scots law” – gives the Scottish authorities the power to prosecute a UK national for breach of international Law.

Wilson’s call has been supported by a further seven SNP MSPs in a motion (S3M-5525) tabled in the Scottish Parliament including Jamie Hepburn, who has previously worked for Housing and Communities Minister, Alex Neil, and Aileen Campbell who has previously worked for the SNP’s Deputy Leader, Nicola Sturgeon.

Scotland on Sunday notes that the SNP have declined to comment on whether First Minister Alex Salmond, supports the calls for legal action, however they add:

“Mr Salmond strongly supports the Chilcot Inquiry, although it would have benefited from having more legal expertise among the questioners on the panel.”

Salmond had previously joined calls for the former Prime Minister to face impeachment over his policy to Iraq. The SNP have further confirmed that at the request of Sir John Chilcot, they have submitted to the Iraq Inquiry the legal evidence that provided the basis of their call for impeachment.

Last year, the Times reported that Salmond with a group of other MPs charged the taxpayer £14,100 to assist with their failed campaign to impeach Blair. As a result, following a complaint by Labour Peer and MSP, Lord Foulkes, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards confirmed that he would investigate Salmond’s conduct and allegations that he used public funds from Parliament to launch a party political campaign.

In response, Scotland on Sunday has said:

“Labour claimed their opponents were guilty of trying to make ‘infantile political capital’ out of the Iraq issue, saying they should focus their attention on jobs and the economy.”

Tony Blair’s performance before the Iraq Inquiry today was as virtuoso as his supporters hoped and his critics feared.

What is most interesting perhaps from both a historical and legal perspective is his contention that:

“What matters sometimes is not to ask the March 2003 question but rather to ask the 2010 question… I think it is arguable that he was a threat and had we taken that decision to leave him there… with the oil price at $100 a barrel, he would have had the intent and he would have had the means, and we would have lost our nerve.”

As the Guardian’s live coverage noted, Blair did not explain what Saddam’s “intent” would have been but the statement may have been both the most honest and dangerous thing said this morning.

His emphasis on the long term implications of Saddam’s retention of power combined with his fear that at an unspecified point in the future Saddam would have been stronger and the West weaker is further evidence that this was not a pre-emptive war to defend British national interests but a preventive one to defeat an adversary who may pose a future threat. The former Prime Minsiter’s directness in this respect is to be welcomed.

The danger however lies in the fact that if this were his motivation for war he crossed the line between pre-emptive war and preventive war. Pre-emptive war has a clear basis in international law whereas the legality of preventive war is far more controversial.

As the testimony of Foreign Office lawyers, former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, and now former Prime Minsister Blair has made clear, had the precautionary principle been applied to the legality of the Iraq war there would have been no Iraq war.

Since the ‘managed collapse’ of the Copenhagen summit in December, much influential commentary in European media and from governments including our own has focused on blaming China for the failure of the talks.

Green guru Jonathon Porritt delves into the arguments around China’s green credibility in a new article for the latest edition of Prospect magazine. He writes:

“China’s middle classes do not want to be ordered off the ladder of consumption just as they have gained their first toehold on it, and the poor still expect their government to get them onto it quickly. Their leaders fear public anger on economic grounds much more than they do on any environmental issue.”

He goes on to describe how China has what he terms “a classic frog [First Raise Our Growth] economy,” which he notes has “benefited hundreds of millions of people. The number of Chinese living in extreme poverty dropped from 685 million in 1990 to 210 million in 2007” adding, “Who can argue with the mission to eliminate extreme poverty, while improving the living standards of the rest of the population?”

Who indeed? But this is where the real fallacy lies. Development need not mean high carbon growth. In fact, in a carbon-constrained world that’s just not an option if we are to stop dangerous warming, which is why what Porritt has to say about China’s investment decisions on clean energy is so important point.

Porritt highlights that many expect that China will overtake all other countries to “dominate the market for green technologies” with HSBC estimating the renewables market will be worth $2 trillion by 2020. This view is shared by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times and Geoffrey Lean who writes on Grist:

“The main challenge from the world’s new industrial superpower [China] is not that it will continue to use the dirty, old technologies of the past, but that it will come to dominate the new, clean, green ones of the future.”

As Porritt explains, “China is focused as much on those international markets as on its own energy challenge” and points out that China’s “trio of world-leading solar companies, Suntech, Trina and Yingling, are racing to be the first to achieve “grid parity”—the point at which solar-powered electricity costs no more than coal-powered or nuclear-powered. Solar companies in the US and Germany are worried about this competition.”

With conflicting views of how green China will be, Porritt says:

“The first real test of this will be its next five-year plan, for the period 2011-15. In November 2009, the China Council for International Co-operation on Environment and Development presented (Chinese Premier) Wen Jiabao with a low-carbon road map for inclusion in the plan.

“One of its scenarios is a ‘business-as-usual’ route to prosperity, resulting in emissions of 13bn tonnes of CO 2 a year by 2050. Then there is an ‘enhanced low-carbon scenario’ that would see emissions peaking in 2025 and reducing to 5bn tonnes a year by 2050. Caught between those two scenarios, and the eight billion tonnes a year that divide them, lies the future of human civilisation. Put at its simplest, there is no sustainable, equitable future available to humanity unless China makes that possible.”

In an address to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) last week, General Sir David Richards, the head of the British army, outlined his arguments for increasing the numbers of soldiers in the army in response to evidence that the very nature of war is changing.

He is right to do so.

75,000 British troops, from an army of more than 100,000, have already served one, two or even three tours in Afghanistan. Hidden within these figures, 25,000 infantrymen will have borne the brunt of more than ten years of warfare by the time the deployment begins to draw down.

During this period some infantry units have been deployed every other year.

The Unites States’ military engine is running hot. The British army’s is nearing meltdown. NATO and its respective populations are war weary.

Although ongoing ‘Transformation’ in the US Army and an impending Strategic Defence Review in Britain may address their core re-structuring issues in the medium term, in the short term, a period of rest and recuperation will be needed in the infantry if they are to remain fully operational.

If this need is fully conveyed by military staffs to policymakers – and that is not a given in a career and legacy-conscious organisation – the result should be a short term unwillingness to commit large numbers of conventional ground forces to emerging conflicts.

Much of this is due to the evidence from both the Second Gulf War and Afghanistan that the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), in its purest, populist form, is dead. Precision weapons have not stopped the need for the infantry to close with and kill the enemy in combat.

There will be no more wars and interventions without casualties, as in the First Gulf War and Kosovo; the rise of asymmetric ‘wars amongst the people’ coupled with the decline of inter-state warfare have ensured this.

The Weinberger/Powell doctrines that accompanied the RMA and blueprinted quick, clean, military interventions in inter-state conflicts are redundant. While Rumsfeld’s ‘shock and awe’, a synthesis of these doctrines, may deliver tactical victories, Iraq has proven that it cannot deliver strategic victory in conflict’s changed paradigm.

Faced with the overwhelming and precise use of military force in interventions, the west’s enemies now seek refuge amongst the populations. This is nothing new. As a counter-measure it has historic precedent. What is new is the west’s method of continuing to seek victory, despite unfavourable operating conditions, for forces mainly configured to fight conventional wars.

In the US, Generals such as Petreaus and McChrystal have recognised this and adapted accordingly. They argue that the army can deliver strategic victory in wars amongst the people. Their population-centric strategies require infantry intensive forces and massive resourcing over protracted periods.

But evidence from Iraq and Afghanistan indicates that nation building itself is still beyond the scope of both western militaries and the political will of their masters. Such grandiose aims must be tempered to protecting the space within which national institutions, aided by deployable civilian experts, can grow, and on the training of indigenous security forces.

This is a more realistic mission but remains incredibly intensive in manpower, resources, funding, time and political will.

Thus, involvement in these ‘wars amongst the people’ holds greater risks for policy makers than ever before. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan are not to get involved militarily if at all possible, because intervention will be lengthy and costly.

This is precisely what the Weinberger/Powell doctrines and ‘shock and awe’ were designed to avoid. They have failed. In war, there is no simple, safe, quick template answer anymore.

This does not mean the RMA in its wider form is dead. On the contrary, the military is wise to continue investing heavily in developing technologies that give the infantry an edge over an asymmetric enemy. Advances in drones, body armour, sighting devices and surveillance systems are force multipliers for the infantryman on the ground.

Evidence suggests interventions are different in each circumstance and require bespoke military training and resources. Therefore, both doctrinally and structurally, forces need to remain flexible and self critical. Britain lags behind the US in this regard.

In a recent address to a higher command course, the army’s next generation of leaders, a British general allegedly surmised his brief with the words ‘Basically, the army’s fucked for the next ten to fifteen years. Get on with it.’ At least some see through the facade, and General Richards’s observations contribute to the growing need for debate within the British army and the wider military.

As the Afghanistan deployment begins to draw down, the British army needs to reflect internally over what it has been good at and not so good at in the last ten years of fighting. Meanwhile, British policy makers need to reappraise their terms of, and aims for, the use of military force. Their decisions must be reflected in the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review.

Amongst other tough options, the Review offers cash strapped Britain stark choices between a light, specialist, expeditionary, sea-delivered force for short deployments or a heavier, more conventional force for longer deployments. In the past, faced with such strategic decisions, British policymakers have decided not to decide. This will not do this time around.

A decision must be made that takes heed of war’s changing paradigm. Our soldiers deserve nothing less.