The British Position on Foreign Policy

It's a rare occasion when a foreign official makes the rounds in the American Southeast, so I was excited to attend a lecture delivered by Martin Rickerd, the British Council-General in Atlanta. The presentation, "Key Priorities for Britain in the World," was well put together and provided a concise portrait of Britain's current foreign policy outlook. Rickerd has spent over thirty years in the Foreign Office, and the lecture allowed him to draw on many of his experiences. Some things that stood out:

Rickerd focused on three major areas of contemporary British policy: Climate Security, and Terrorism, and Sustainable Development. Rickerd went out of his way to explain the use of the term "Climate Security"; it appears that Britain has fully embraced the concept of global warming as a security issue as well as an environmental one. Here, Rickerd cited a Center for a New American Security paper on climate change and references Georgia's own water woes. Clearly, the UK is determined to learn from American mistakes and policy debates. Also mentioned; a parliamentary effort to mandate carbon emissions cuts throughout the UK. Despite his obvious pride in British environmental efforts, Rickerd emphasized the potential for American leadership in this area.

On terrorism, Rickerd hammered home the idea of treating terrorists as common criminals. He questioned the overuse of the GWOT designation, cautioning that it made it easier for policy makers to cast the enemy in monolithic terms. He spoke in general terms about British efforts to support and build rapport with its 1.6 Muslims, even going to so far as to point out the extent of Muslim representation in government (e.g. a deputy commissioner in London's metropolitan police). The common challenge of Muslim minorities throughout Europe was brought up, although Rickerd made the seldom-acknowledged point that the origin of these minorities varies; Britain's Muslims are primarily South Asian, France's Muslims are generally North African, and Germany's community is predominately Turkish. The approaches to dealing with these minorities will require a cultural understanding that acknowledges ethnicity and nationality as well as religion.

During the Q&A, I asked Rickerd about the perceived weakness of NATO in the post-9/11 era. He responded that NATO had lost its original purpose with the end of the Cold War, and that the alliance was still searching for a new mission. Rickerd described Afghanistan as a "good trying ground" for a new NATO orientation and conceded that "things have not gone as well as they might". Still, he refused to question the relevance or future potential of the alliance.

The last question came from a skeptical professor who asked about the British position on the proposed Missile Defense sites in Eastern Europe. Rickerd denied current knowledge of the official British line, but (much to the surprise of the professor) went on to say that the British government supported any measure to bring additional security and that he believed the proposal "made sense." I don't mean to add much weight to Rickerd's personal opinion, but I found that openness to missile defense very interesting coming from a senior Foreign Office official.

AFRICOM Blues

By now, a lot of ink has been spilled about the placement of the new AFRICOM regional command. Yesterday word came that the HQ was staying Germany, today it seemed Liberia could still ending up being the host country. The fierce opposition to this new command has had many people talking about America's loss of respect and prestige, but this interpretation is misleading in that it overlooks the experiences of other regional command headquarters. A rough measurement of distances between important geopolitical points and the HQ assigned to them reveals that CENTCOM is about 7000 miles from Baghdad and 7700 miles from Kabul. PACCOM is about 4700 miles from Beijing, and SOUTHCOM is 1400 hundred miles from Venezuela. The distance between Germany and Kenya, at 4100 miles, is not so expansive by comparison. And if the failure to gain a foothold in Africa indicates a lack of post-9/11 confidence in America's intentions, then why has CENTCOM spent two decades with its HQ in the wrong hemisphere?

This scuffle over basing rights should not prevent AFRICOM from eventually establishing a presence on the continent after the initial furor dies down. Some of the African protests are patently ridiculous, anyway. Worries about being drawn into the GWOT are moot considering the fact that Sudan hosted Al-Qaeda during the mid-90's and that August will mark the tenth anniversary of the East African embassy bombings. The GWOT has been in Africa for some time, whether its countries acknowledge it or not.

More legitimate concerns about competition with China and additional US military deployments will need to be addressed for AFRICOM to become a success, but it might be a good idea for everyone to take a deep breath and reserve judgment until this young organization has a few years under its belt.