Latest from Coffee House

The outgoing US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has delivered a remarkably frank warning to the European members of Nato that if they do not spend more on defence, the United States will be unwilling to maintain the transatlantic alliance. Gates declared that, “The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense — nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers

In a clear move to distract attention from his own problems, Syrian president Bashir Assad has allowed people to march from the Syrian border toward the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, in the hope it will lead to a violent reaction from the Israelis. It did. Israeli forces opened fire on the people, wounding several. There are reports of at least four people killed and 13 wounded but these have not been verified. There can be no doubt that the incursion is part of a Syrian plan. The protests coincide with the 44th anniversary of the Six-Day War, when Israel captured the Golan from Syria, as well as the West Bank and

Liam Fox is fond of reminding us that he didn’t come into politics to cut the armed forces. A wistful look falls across his face when he says it – an indication of frustration as much as sincerity, a sense deepened by his letter of concern about the government spending so much more on international development. Opponents of Fox might characterise this as hypocrisy: he would reduce the size of the state without touching the armed forces, they say. His enemies in the Conservative party say that it’s typical of this “clever fool’s” intellectual indiscipline. Fox the military and fiscal hawk wants to “have it both ways”. The Economist has

Sometimes you wait and wait for an event, and nothing ever happens. Pakistan is always said to be teetering on the brink of collapse but never quite edges over the precipice. The same used to be the case with Yemen. In fact, Coffee House predicted that Yemen would implode last year, but Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh managed to hold the country together in the face of terrorism, irredentist movements, insurgency and, recently, pro-democracy protesters demanding his resignation.   Now, however, the wily leader may finally have run out of road. Heavy clashes have erupted in the capital Sanaa, a day after Saleh again refused to sign a Gulf-brokered power-transition.

The National Security Council was a sound idea. But it has disappointed, both inside and outside Whitehall. The Ministry of Defence has complained that it “failed to give strategic direction”. Among previous supporters in the media, Con Coughlin has commented sourly that “all it has achieved so far is the replacement of Blair’s much-derided ‘sofa government’ with a new, back-of-the-envelope approach”. James Kirkup was even driven to ask “What exactly is the point of it?” Where did things go wrong? First, it seems that more effort went into spinning it to the media — it was a ‘War Cabinet’ to Sun readers, an end to ‘sofa government’ to those disaffected

The covers of our newspapers are emblazoned with Bin Laden this morning — but it is an article in a US newspaper that really catches the eye. Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardari, has written an op-ed for the Washington Post that defends his country’s role in the struggle against Al-Qaeda. It’s a defence that has four components. 1) Sympathy: “Pakistan … joins the other targets of al-Qaeda in our satisfaction that the source of the greatest evil of the new millennium has been silenced.” 2) Credit-sharing: “We in Pakistan take some satisfaction that our early assistance in identifying an al-Qaeda courier ultimately led to this day.” 3) Defiance: “Pakistan has

The triumvirate of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have presented a united front to NATO and the Arab League and said there will be no respite in Libya. Writing to the Times (£), they say: ‘Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.’ They also add that to leave Gaddafi in power would be an ‘unconscionable betrayal’, a marked shift in emphasis. It’s rousing stuff, designed to twist reluctant arms at the NATO summit in Berlin. However, as former ambassador to Tripoli Oliver Miles suggests, this letter is unlikely to be

Just because Nicolas Sarkozy believes something does not make it untrue. The French president was adamant that Nato shouldn’t take over the Libya campaign. He preferred to run an ad hoc coalition of the willing. Britain, however, was keen for the alliance to take control of a mission that seemed too loosely-organised. Once the United States decided to fade into the background of the military operation, the impetus for a switch to Nato grew. A few weeks into the transfer, people are beginning to wonder whether President Sarkozy was right in the first place. According to yesterday’s Sunday Times, Nato is doing what it did in Bosnia: blocking the rebels

The Libya intervention has already turned the international kaleidoscope, showing new and remarkable patterns. It has seen China acquiesce to a no-fly zone, and the West in alliance with the Arab League. Nobody thought that was likely 6 months ago. It has also changed reputations. Nicolas Sarkozy may win re-election on the back of the war. William Hague, who had a bad revolution, is having a good war.   The government has become more multilateralist, as opposed to the kind of bilateralism it espoused when it took office. Nearly a year ago, it sent a clear message to the FCO — bilateral ties would matter, multilateral ties less so. Now,

The coalition is now in danger of coming unstuck — not because of failure, but because of its success. It needs to urgently decide how to run itself and what its aims are. Before it runs out of targets. Neither is easy to do. The US may want to handover control of the mission but there is not really anyone they can transfer authority to. NATO is being blocked from assuming control, the EU does not have the wherewithal — its naval mission off Somalia’s coast is already run out of Permanent Joint Headquarters in north London — and the UK and France would struggle to run the mission, either

The press is currently making great play of an apparent difference between General Richard and Liam Fox on whether or not Gaddafi can be targeted. The whole debate flags up one of the absurdities of international legal convention. If it is legitimate to hit a Libyan tank crew moving on Benghazi, why it is not legitimate to target the person who is ultimately giving these orders?     Given the whole nature of the Libyan state, the fastest — and, I would say, most humane — way to end this conflict would be to kill Gaddafi. Anne-Marie Slaughter, until recently the head of policy planning at the State Department, argued

“There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight.” Perhaps it was the murderous threat contained within Gaddafi’s latest radio message that shocked the United Nations into action today — because shocked into action they have been. After sweating and toiling over the precise formulation of a resolution on Libya, the UN Security Council finally reached the voting stage this evening. And it has now voted 10-0 in favour of member states taking “all necessary measures … to protect civilian and populated areas, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.” Brazil, India, China, Russia and — staggeringly — Germany all abstained. What this means, in practice,