Those who attended the Hay festival debate between Britain's ambassador in Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, and Rory Stewart—who also duked it out in the January 2008 issue of Prospect—say it was enthralling. So why did this verbal joust about Britain's Afghan policy end up on the cutting-room floor?
Most of the other Hay talks were uploaded as podcasts to the festival's website. But of the Afghan debate, not a trace. No explanation was forthcoming. But it may have something to do with the content of the debate, in which Stewart, a longstanding critic of Britain's Afghanistan policy, was felt to have got the better of his opponent (who admittedly had his hands tied). One of the juicier moments came when Cowper-Coles told a questioner that the British were talking to the Taliban—something of a touchy topic given American hostility to the idea of dialogue with evil-doers. Another was when Cowper-Coles was asked about Hamid Karzai. The ambassador replied that he couldn't say publicly what he really thought of the Afghan president. To speak candidly, he would have to meet the questioner for a drink afterwards. It is not known whether the invitation was taken up.
It has since transpired that Stewart, who has been running an NGO in Kabul, is leaving to take up a post at Harvard. His reference for the job came from Cowper-Coles himself. According to one Afghan aid expert, it is not hard to explain why Cowper-Coles might have given Stewart a glowing write-up. Anything to get a vocal critic out of town to allow the Brits to get on with some good old-fashioned quiet diplomacy.
Image, below: a horse during a military parade in Caracas for Venezuela's independence day, 5th July 2007
Clever Colbert
Muslim clerics aside, the other surprise winner of Prospect's intellectuals poll has been American comedian Stephen Colbert, who topped our vote for a figure not on the official list. Perhaps best known in Britain for his unforgettable Bush-bashing at the 2006 White House correspondents' dinner (at which he praised Fox News for giving viewers "both sides of every story: the president's side and the vice-president's side"), he has also been awarded an honorary doctorate in fine arts, three Peabody awards for broadcasting excellence, and had a Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavour named after him—an honour even Fethullah Gülen will find it hard to match. Colbert's victory also suggests he has the gift of timing, essential for any comic—The Colbert Report has just started broadcasting daily in Britain on the FX channel.
Obama and Iraq
Disarray reigns in Camp Obama over what to do in Iraq. Colin Kahl, who chairs Obama's Iraq task force, advocates "conditional engagement": leaving a large contingent of American forces in Iraq for several years. Another task force member, Brian Katulis, argues for a full and immediate withdrawal, except for a small force to protect the American embassy. He even suggests halting US training of Iraqi government forces. Katulis thinks there is "no real difference" between Kahl's strategy and that of the Bush administration.
As evidence grows of both military and political progress in Iraq, and polls show that an increasing number of Americans perceive the "surge" to be working, a healthy debate within the Obama ranks may be no bad thing. After all, his promise to withdraw troops within 14 to 16 months of taking office regardless of the facts on the ground is out of step with his commitment to a more nuanced politics. But it's also risky: any mixed signals on Iraq give war hero John McCain all the ammunition he needs to paint Obama as a flip-flopper who is weak on foreign policy—which, as the hapless John Kerry discovered four years ago, can be fatal to a bid for the White House.
Bush's Iran gambit
Is there any serious possibility that George W Bush will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of his presidency? The Iranians don't appear to think so. "Bush's time is up," crowed President Ahmadinejad recently. "And he was not able to harm even one centimetre of our land."
European opinion tends to concur. But some high-placed facilitators of recent talks between US and Iranian officials in Sweden believe there is, in fact, a very real possibility of strikes. The US national intelligence estimate of November 2007, which declared that Iran had halted its active nuclear weapons programme in 2003, may merely have been a tactic for lowering the diplomatic pressure. A new report by former UN arms inspector David Albright reveals ongoing American fears that Iran might in fact have had access to advanced weapons designs as recently as 2006. A well-placed observer of the US-Iranian talks, speaking cautiously, puts the risk of American military action at
30 per cent.
While it is unlikely Bush will order strikes before November's election, for fear of jeopardising John McCain's chances, the administration will have two and a half months before inauguration day. The traditional use of this period is to hand out pardons, as Bill Clinton did—liberally. But there are other precedents. Jimmy Carter conducted the main negotiations over the Iranian hostage crisis after losing to Reagan in 1980. It would be more unusual to initiate military action, but Bush could do what he might genuinely believe to be in America's long-term interests, leaving the new president to reap the advantages—or deal with the fallout.
Six degrees of Cass Sunstein
At least Sunstein can't be accused of social climbing. His new love, Power, came four places behind Nussbaum in our poll. But it's worth noting that the prolific Sunstein, whom colleagues call the "Kevin Bacon" of academic law, is also indirectly linked to another of our top 100 luminaries. Before her association with Sunstein, Nussbaum dated Amartya Sen. Sen came 16th on our list: far above either Nussbaum or Power. Six degrees of global intellectuals, anyone?
Respect Canada
The British chattering classes are not known for their interest in the minutiae of Canadian provincial politics. But having read Quebec's snappily titled "Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences" report, I urge others to follow suit, writes Catherine
Fieschi.
Written by philosopher Charles Taylor and historian Gérard Bouchard, it's a masterwork of multicultural lucidity, balancing respect for Quebec's minority national identity with the rights of its own immigrants, particularly Muslims. It reflects on the principle of "reasonable accommodation," which accepts that the law should be relaxed in cases where its strict application might infringe an individual's cultural rights (think turbans and motorcycle helmets). The language is straightforward and evocative, without being simplistic. And the report tackles the major 21st-century battle lines—secularism, identity, liberal values, relativism, human rights—without hiding behind political correctness. See it at www.accommodements.qc.ca. It is of relevance to British debates, and proof that issues of identity and nationalism can be sensitively addressed—and be a real page-turner too.
Co-payment Clarke
As the debate about co-payment in the NHS hots up—with the government apparently ready to concede the point in relation to privately purchased drugs—watch out for an intervention from Charles Clarke, who is bringing out a big report in mid-July. The Tories meanwhile can adopt the high (left-wing) ground while privately welcoming the shift.
The Yale takeover of Oxbridge
Hamilton's appointment will see Britain's two most prestigious universities presided over by ex-Yale provosts—the other being Alison Richard, Cambridge's vice-chancellor. Among other things, this is a sign of the increasingly high esteem in which the American model of university administration is held by Britain's cash-strapped universities. And the Guildford-born Hamilton's appointment comes at a critical time for Oxford, which recently launched a star-studded £1.25bn fundraising drive. There's still a way to go, however. At Yale, Hamilton controlled an endowment worth £11.5bn, compared to Oxford's mere £3.4bn.
If the Yale model is anything to go by, undergraduates—and the alumni funding networks based upon them—will be at the heart of the new order of things. Despite its relative poverty, Oxford has more than twice as many undergraduates as Yale—12,106 against 5,333—a burden that may yet prove its greatest asset.
