International politics

Nouri Maliki was last night appointed Iraqi prime minister after the country broke the world record for the slowest process of government formation. Eight months passed between the election and the formation, beating even previous Belgian records of procrastination. Hours after his appointment, however, members of al-Iraqiya, the main Sunni-backed alliance led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, walked out of the Parliament. Their concern: Maliki’s failure to do as he had promised and reinstate four Sunni leaders who had been banned for alleged ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath party. Despite the walk-out, Jalal Talabani was elected president and handed the task of forming a government to the largest coalition,

Admiral Lord West’s intervention was most striking in its language. He promised that a ‘national humiliation on the scale of the loss of Singapore’ would ensue unless his advice was heeded. Writing in the Times (£), Sir Menzies Campbell notes West’s seething tone and concludes that his frustration was the product of a review of defence resources, not strategy. At no point, Campbell says, did the government ask ‘what sort of country do we want to be’ and plan accordingly. Campbell continues: ‘Is Britain ready now or likely to be ready to go to the aid, alone or with allies, of a nation that becomes the target of aggression, as

For the first time since 1990, Burma went to the polls. Though the final results have not been released, most regard the election as a sham meant to cement military rule, with complex election rules put in place to exclude opposition candidates as well as interference from the junta in the campaign and a ban on foreign reporting.   Senior General Than Shwe and his camouflage-clad cohorts are likely to get away with the electoral theft. Nearly all of Burma’s neighbours -– Thailand, India and China included -– are willing to ignore the regime’s failings to obtain commercial benefits.  As The Telegraph has reported, Chinese investment in Burma stands at

The world is undergoing a permanent shift of power from West to East, with China being the biggest beneficiary and middling states (like Britain) likely to be the biggest losers. The government may, in the words of William Hague, reject any kind of strategic shrinkage. But if China’s economy continues to grow at even half the rate it has developed until now, Britain will end up looking small no matter what policy it pursues. What is the best way to deal with a country like China, which on current projections, will have a larger economy than the United States by 2050? How best to position Britain if the US and

Yesterday saw an outbreak of Yeminitis, with Westminster focused on Osama Bin Laden’s ancestral home after the foiled bomb plot. To CoffeeHouse readers, this will come as no surprise. Last year, the Spectator prophesised that Yemen would be the “sleeper issue” of 2010. And so it has proved. But what have successive British governments been doing since the threat began to grow? UK policy towards Yemen is an exemplary case of cross-government cooperation. Rarely do the FCO, DFID and the MoD collaborate as closely as they do over Yemen. Alan Duncan, now a Minister for International Development, has taken a personal interest in the country, flying to Sana’a earlier in

Russia and Nato are now allies, or birds of a feather at least. The Independent reports that the twentieth century’s opposed spheres will work together for stability in Afghanistan. The attendant irony is blissful. Two years ago, machismo raged between Nato and Russia over Georgia. Why the sudden accord? There are two schools of thought, both relating to the East’s inexorable rise. Russia can no longer determine Central Asia of its own accord: China co-opted the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a long-time pillar of Russian power in Asia, to condemn Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia – a sign, to Russian eyes at least, of China’s creeping influence in Central

Wikileaks is the story of the day. The Guardian has extensive coverage of unsubstantiated allegations made by unnamed Iraqis. That is not to prejudge the revelations, just to provide balance against the sensational headlines before proper investigations called for by the UN. In addition to the alleged atrocities and cover-ups, Wikileaks’ disclosures support what Blair and Bush said and maintain: Iran incited dissidence to exploit instability. In fact, it is still doing so, despite the Obama administration’s protests to the contrary. The New York Times has eviscerated Biden and Obama this morning. The Telegraph’s Toby Harnden has the best summary of the unfolding debate: ‘It seems to me that the