Paddy Ashdown at the APPG for Conflict Issues

And so to Portcullis House. There isn't one, of course. Nor a drawbridge. There are x-ray machines and metal detectors manned by bobbies with HK53s. (What tactical need is being met by a ported 5.56 mm sub-machine gun, I wonder, as opposed to a holstered 9 mm handgun? I guess they are deployed for their menacing appearance - like the beefeater's halberd, which also would be pretty useless in a close quarter scuffle.) Anyhoo, the chaps are efficient and friendly enough to one, such as me, also in uniform (you know, the grey suit, white shirt, black oxfords sort). Up the stairs and round to the MacMillan room. Kind of ironic, I suppose, for a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Committee for Conflict Issues (peace by any other name), since Mac's enduring fame in the history of international relations was the retro-colonial Suez fiasco. But we are not here to talk about him. We are here to listen to Lord (Paddy) Ashdown and his thoughts on peace-building as articulated in his new book (yes, I bought a copy just to be polite) 'Swords and Ploughshares'.

I'm early. Greeters at the door. Pleasant room with plenty of natural light; cool and airy thanks to the building's novel airflow system (look for the outsize ventilation stacks on the roof, drawing fresh cool air through the building.) If I didn't know better I'd think the greeter had enjoyed a bracing beverage before starting her shift, so chatty and gracious is she to such a lowly one as I. Perhaps she has assumed I am a professor not a student. I correct her. The 'Ministry for Peace' provides the secretariat for the APPCCI. I am interested in MiniPax. The project was initiated in this country by Diana Basterfield, I am told, around the time of the invasion of Iraq and the consequent mobilization of peace groups. Those involved, it seems, are generally of a religious bent: Buddhist, Quaker, Sufi. John McDonald from the Labour left has championed their cause. I should find out more about what this Ministry would do. (I had thought that foreign ministries or departments for International Development would be the other side of the coin to Defence, but I apparently not.) Other guests arrive. The greeter checks an older gentleman on the list (older and more gentle than me, anyway) and he proffers a flyer about his peace group. Do we all have our own agendas?

Paddy arrives. Six foot, handsome, smiling and asking what kind of people turn up to this type of event. I am wondering too, but my ears unfortunately aren't sharp enough to catch the reply. I take my seat and others start to settle down too. There are about 50 of us in five rows of ten. (There are green monitors on the wall facing us telling us what else is going on the building: parliamentary committee meetings. Intriguingly there are two digital time displays: one is two minutes different from the other. Why two? Why different?) I spot Kat who invited the class to this event. It's a good thing they didn't all come: its pretty full now. Gary Streeter, MP and Chairman of the Conservative Party International Office introduces Paddy as a man of three careers: Marine, Liberal Democrat Party Leader and High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (who exactly he represented, I still haven't established). Paddy grins and, feeling his way with this audience, starts of with a joke about George Brown getting drunk. No. Not the right approach. We laugh politely but are clearly not in need of cathartic release. He switches gear.

First he gives a sketch of his understanding of the world political situation as it is about to unfold: impending retrenchment by the US (no isolationism, that's impossible nowadays); the reemergence of Russia as a global military force; China's impact as yet unknown, unknowable; globalization; chill winds in Europe as the US withdraws its security guarantee making defence integration a necessity; the rise of Asia. Conclusion? Governance must be brought to the 'global space'. [Ah, more of the same then. We've tried political solutions for 3,000 years without lasting success, but lets keep plugging away.] Paddy fears that the US public will be so scarred (scarred, not scared) by the Iraq experience that they will not support future 'good' interventions (like Bosnia, of course). "The world is full of dry tinder and fire-brands". A quote. There are 74 conflicts in progress at the moment. But on the positive side, the UN has intervened on average once every six months in internal conflicts and has a 66% success rate in containing, preventing or curtailing armed hostilities. We KNOW how to do this. We KNOW the principles of how to deescalate conflict and build functioning states. Iraq though: "hubris, nemesis, amnesia". So sure were the Americans of their overwhelming power that they ignored the lessons of the occupation of Germany, of Japan, of Bosnia, of Kosovo and the well established expertise that exists in how to stabilize conflict zones. [Read the book, it develops all these themes.]

The gospel of Paddy: we should intervene; we should do it legally; we should plan for the peace at least as much as we plan for the war; we should become as expert at projecting governance as we are at projecting force. Attempts at pacification in Iraq and Afghanistan are failing because we have failed to provide security (Maslow's hierarchy of needs gets a mention) and thus have failed at step one to win the support of local public opinion and allegiance. (Security is a very basic need: people give their first loyalty in stress situations to those who provide it whether that be foreign troops, police, militias or war-lords.) We tried to do Iraq on the cheap in terms of manpower resources, compared to Bosnia. Afghanistan even more so. There is a way to succeed as a liberating power, but the window of opportunity is short for you to win over the population and lay foundations for a new state. In Iraq the US (alright, and the UK) flubbed and the window, the honeymoon period, is long gone. Paddy discusses the sequencing: of military action; of establishing civil judicial, police and penal systems; of rebuilding economies (enterprise, self-employment, not just aid); of institution building. The timing of elections, as a legitimacy tool, are critical. Involve the neighbouring states. It takes 10 years to build a functioning state; much longer to heal the rifts caused by civil war (like 250 years, apparently, for the English Civil War?!)

Is it just me, or is Paddy starting to sound like a liberal imperialist (the 'we' is indicative; Paddy is part of the power in the world; the audience are invited to become complicit too.) Gladstone, was it? The international community has the right and duty to intervene anywhere and everywhere. No need to reflect too deeply on how things seem from the local point of view: 'global norms' are self-justifying, self-evident and should be efficiently enforced on needy backward societies with barbaric tendencies. I paraphrase. Hey, don't get me wrong, I like self-evident truths as much as the next man and a real international community of equals would be a great idea. Never mind that we are being asked to ignore the self-serving behaviours of the big boys on the world stage and the fact they want to build states compliant to their own desires. [I recall that Ramsbotham. Woodhouse and Miall suggest that economic growth creates peace. Makes sense? Hmm. Maybe its true that economic growth papers over the cracks of latent dissatisfactions, but that is scarcely the same thing as bringing peace. It also implies that without constant economic growth there would be conflict. Too right. Wealth can be an anesthetic, not a cure for unpeace.] If you like the Paddy world-view, though, I think you will find 'The Utility of Force' by General Rupert Smith chimes in with it quite nicely. They mutually admire.

Question time begins. Shamir is first out of the blocks with what I can only guess, through the rather thick accent, is an articulation of my own thinking on the imperial tenor of Paddy's outlook. Paddy straight bats with a non-answer, ignoring the critical implications of the question. Gary intervenes to move us on to more congruent topics. Q: Reform security council. A: Sure, but I prefer imperfect legitimization to adventurism. [Njal, I want to say, as usual.] Q: Darfur, why not French no-fly zone? A: Aid aircraft not the problem; we managed in Bosnia. Q: Bosnia - stopping dealing with consequences start looking at causes. A: Thomas Aquinas says it is no sin not to do that which you are not able to do. He compares Aquinas's and Grotius's formulations for Just War with the UN formula. (Yeah, their the same - and this is meant to surprise you. ) 1) State breaks law 2) This effects neighbours 3) You've tried all other means 4) You're gonna use proportionate force 5) You have secured legitimization for action 6) you have a prospect for success. [ 7) Ok, go ahead, nuke 'em!] Then comes the 'why are there more women involved in peace negotiations and governance' question. (At the Brunei last week the answers were that women are just as hard ball as men anyway and that women are better in as much as they tend to focus on practical issues rather than principles). Paddy's answer is that try as he might he couldn't persuade women to come forward and participate.

So that was that. Meeting breaks up. MiniPaxers hand round glasses of wine and Paddy starts signing books. My neighbour turns out to work for ConflictsForum.org who, to quote their website, 'connect the West and the Muslim world.' Sounds good to me. I will check it out.

That's it for now.