International politics

The Times has obtained confidential correspondence suggesting that, in 1999, Robin Cook assured Madeleine Albright that those found guilty of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing would serve their sentences in Scotland. A senior US official told the Times: “There was a clear understanding at the time of the trial that al-Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland. In the 1990s the UK had the same view. It is up to them to explain what changed.” So how do they explain it? Kenny MacAskill claims that US officials urged him against releasing the Lockerbie bomber because Britain had pledged he would serve his serve sentence in Scotland. Seeking clarification, MacAskill wrote

One of the oddest parts of Libyagate is what it says about Gordon Brown’s notions of devolution. The Prime Minister does not want to comment on the affair because, we are told, he sees it as a matter for the Scottish government, not the British government. So, if the actions of a devolved but subordinate level of government go against the state’s interests, the leaders of that state should stay mum? That’s certainly not the view taken by successive US administrations; they have often condemned state-level actions, even when the federal government has been legally powerless to do anything in practice. The UK has no written constitution as in the

Paul Waugh’s spot on: Brown has been reluctant to congratulate England for their Ashes victory because he is so desperate to avoid being dragged into the international furore surrounding al-Megrahi’s release. A Number.10 spokesman described Kenny MacAskill’s release order as a “uniquely sensitive and difficult decision” and one that (surprise, surprise) was taken completely independently of the British government. But, as yet, Macavity’s not here. I suppose I could be doing the PM a disservice. Braying about our Ashes victory would, of course, be uniquely insensitive to our Australian brothers. And besides, giving congratulations is probably someone else’s job.

In the US, a storm is brewing over Dick Cheney’s alleged role in concealing an intelligence programme from Congress. Whatever the details of the alleged offence, it raises an interesting question: should oversight of the intelligence community intrinsically be different from other kinds of parliamentary oversight? Over in the States, Legislators were content to delegate the management of intelligence agencies to the executive until a series of abuses was revealed in the early 1970s, and the House and Senate Committees on Intelligence were set up in 1977. In Britain, however, Parliament has only had scant role in overseeing the intelligence community. Only nine parliamentarians have the legal authority to pry

Watch out: it’s security review season. The Brown government is about to issue a second version of its National Security Strategy. You can expect Pauline Neville-Jones to put out a revised version of the paper she did for the Tories a while ago. The Obama administration is set to launch a new “Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review,” to be headed up by Deputy Secretary of State Jacob “Jack” Lew and Policy Planning chief Anne-Marie Slaughter. While NATO has just begun work on its Strategic Concept, and Russia recently updated its National Security Strategy. Oh, and the EU disseminated a new Security Strategy under the French EU Presidency, which also saw

Presidents Obama, and Medvedev (and Prime Minister Putin) seem to be having a good summit. Nuclear talks look like they have gone well, there has been mention of expanding NATO’s transit for its Afghan mission through Russia, and the mood – crucial at any summit – has been reasonably good. Nobody stared into any one else’s soul, but the leaders nonetheless agreed, as Bush and Putin did a few years ago, that the US and Russia can do business. But is a rapprochement between the US and Russia really possible? Dmitri Trenin, of Carnegie Russia, says the West and Russia share many threats. But he also says that anti-Westernism is

Right now I’m sitting at an event in Brussels to launch NATO’s new Strategic Concept, featuring ex-US Secretary of State Madeleine Allbright, the current and future NATO Secretaries-General, the senior NATO military commander, Admiral Stavridis, and 400 of NATO’s Best Friends Forever. The Strategic Concept, what is that? It is the alliance’s main strategic document, meant to update NATO’s view on threats and challenges. The last one was agreed more than a decade ago. But implementing out the new strategy isn’t going to be easy. The alliance is divided into at least three. Those who fret about Russia’s agressive behaviour. Those who think expeditionary operations are key. And, finally, those

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East hand, has an interesting analysis of the huge news from Iran, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum have declared the election invalid and the Ahamdinejad government illegitimate. What will happen next is crucial but unpredictable. Gerecht speculates that: “If Khamenei tries to crush Qom in the way that Khomeini crushed Grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari in Tabriz in 1979/80, he’ll probably push Qom into open rebellion. If he tries using the Guards Corps as a vehicle of oppression against the clerical establishment, he would surely risk his office. The unthinkable–being dethroned by the Assembly of [clerical] Experts, the institution that constitutionally has