Download Free The Uks Foreign Policy Approach To Afghanistan And Pakistan Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Uks Foreign Policy Approach To Afghanistan And Pakistan and write the review.

In this report the Foreign Affairs Committee calls on the British Government to use its influence to persuade the US to engage more fully, and swiftly, with the process of political reconciliation in Afghanistan if the US wishes to disengage its forces there. Although the current international emphasis favours intense military pressure, aimed at defeating the insurgency, it is clear that military pressure alone is not enough to bring security and stability to Afghanistan. The evidence presented to the Committee has suggested that the current full-scale and highly-intensive ISAF counter-insurgency campaign is not succeeding. The Committee question the fundamental assumption that success in Afghanistan can be 'bought' through a strategy of 'clear, hold and build'. The distinction between al-Qaeda and the Taliban is crucial to generating appropriate policy responses in Afghanistan. The Committee says that despite the significant resources that have been invested in Afghanistan, and the enduring, wholehearted and admirable commitment and sacrifices of British personnel, the UK has not yet achieved its stated goals. There is also evidence that the core foreign policy justification for the UK's continued presence in Afghanistan, namely that it is necessary in the interests of UK national security, may have been achieved some time ago, given the apparently limited strength of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The security rationale behind the UK Government's decision to announce the 2015 deadline for the unconditional withdrawal of UK combat forces remains unclear and there are a number of potential risks inherent in such an approach.
Containing thirteen chapters by Indian and European scholars and practitioners,this volume critically examines the multifarious domestic and external challenges that Pakistan confronts today. It discusses the vicissitudes of the European Union’s relations with Pakistan and the cultural, economic, political and military relations of Central Europe and key European countries—France, Germany and the United Kingdom—with Pakistan. The study highlights the different approaches of India and the European Union towards the Kashmir dispute and the considerations, concerns and policy of the EU towards democracy promotion in Pakistan. It also seeks to answer the question whether the relationship between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Pakistan is a transactional relationship or an enduring partnership. The book analyses the problems faced by Pakistan’s oil and gas sector and the challenges and opportunities for European companies to expand Pakistan’s energy basket. The volume examines the nature, dynamics and challenges of social integration and political participation by the Pakistani diaspora in the United Kingdom. It also explores the political context that shapes both policy and discourse on immigrant integration with special reference to the Pakistani diaspora’s lived experience in three Scandinavian countries. The study will be of interest to all those engaged in the fields of political science, international relations, European politics and foreign policy and Indian and South Asian politics and foreign policy.
Britain has been a significant voice in global politics in the last two decades and its impact on world events far outweighs its material resources. But how does a small island on the edge of Europe continue to exercise this level of power on an international scale? What kind of actor is Britain internationally? And what future challenges will confront British foreign policymakers in a multi-polar world of emerging powers? In this comprehensive introduction to British foreign policy today Jamie Gaskarth addresses these and other key questions. Against a rich historical backdrop, he examines the main actors and processes involved in British foreign policy-making as well as the role played by identity in shaping such choices. Later chapters focus on the relationship between economics and foreign policy, what it means to be ethical in this policy sphere, and the justification for and benefits of the UK’s continued use of force to achieve its foreign policy goals. Combining interview research, theoretical insight and analysis of contemporary and historical trends, this book charts how British foreign policy has come to be understood and practised in the 21st Century. It will be an invaluable guide for students of British politics, foreign policy, international relations and related courses.
Why did Britain come to play such a prominent role in the war on terror and why did the military instrument come to be the dominant theme in the British prosecution of what was an ideological and political struggle? This book is an analysis of Britain’s war against Al Qaeda and the phenomenon of international terrorism which marked a paradigm shift in the nature and conduct of war in the twenty-first century. At the heart of the book is an attempt to understand why Britain, which possessed a wealth of experience in the conduct of counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and small wars, developed a strategic and operational design to defeat the Islamist threat which proved to be deeply flawed. In addressing this question the book explores the complex intellectual, doctrinal and geopolitical challenge posed by Al Qaeda and international terrorism and how and why the British response took the form that it did. In conducting this analysis the book raises important questions about the assumptions and perceptions of those in government who led the UK into this conflict, the nature of the civil military relationship in Britain and how well it functioned, and finally the competence of its security forces in being able to deal with this threat both domestically and overseas.
This reports finds that the Coalition Government has developed in public a more mature and measured relationship with the US, although there has been no fundamental change in the nature of the tie. The Committee declares the relationship to be in good health. In particular, the Committee said that it was not aware of any evidence that the House of Commons vote in August 2013 against potential military action in Syria had damaged the UK's relationship with the US. Rather, the Committee concluded that the episode illustrated general features of the UK-US relationship, namely that developments in the UK could influence US policy; and that the underlying tie was resilient. Today's publication follows up a report produced by the previous Foreign Affairs Committee at the end of the last Parliament, which recommended that the UK Government should adopt a more hard-headed and less deferential approach to the US. The Coalition Government seemed to have taken up this recommendation. The Committee criticises the UK Government's poor provision of information about the UK-US Joint Strategy Board, which was created during President Obama's State Visit to the UK in May 2011. Among strategic issues that it considered, the Committee agreed with the Government that the proposed EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could have significant positive strategic impact for the UK and the transatlantic relationship.
The Committee's report focuses on the planned withdrawal of combat troops at the end of 2014 and the transfer of responsibility for security to the Afghan National Security Forces. It also examines the progress towards a secure and stable Afghanistan within the wider region, including Pakistan, and the plans by the UK, NATO and other allies for a smooth transition of responsibility for security to the Afghan Government and the ANSF. Securing the future of Afghanistan requires the concerted efforts of all the Afghan people; regional neighbours, in particular Pakistan; the USA; NATO and other coalition partners. In the process of establishing a peaceful and functioning Afghanistan, the Committee calls for evidence of: (i) At least the start of an Afghan-led peace settlement with the insurgency; (ii) Open and free elections; (iii) An appropriately trained and equipped ANSF with continuing financial support; (iii) A strong judicial system which protects the human rights of all Afghans; (iv) Economic development aid to continue in support of the well being and safety of all sections of society; (v) Effective measures to tackle corruption, drug production and the drug trade. The MoD needs to work with international partners and the ANSF to identify ways of meeting significant gaps in necessary capabilities such as helicopters and close air support and medical care from 2015. The Defence Committee concludes that at the end of UK operations the best the UK will be able to do is to withdraw in good order and engage with external partners to improve Afghanistan's future prospects.
The Foreign Affairs Committee believes the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) will not be back at the centre of Government and able to lead UK foreign policy, in line with the Foreign Secretary's ambitions, unless it can provide deep foreign policy expertise and judgement to underpin and implement Government decision-making. The FCO must have the resources and skills required to fulfil this role, especially specialist geographical expertise and knowledge of foreign languages. The FCO has a vital role to play for the Government, namely the timely provision of world-class foreign policy information, analysis, judgement and execution. Finances, people and buildings must be well-managed, but managerial requirements must not divert time and focus disproportionately from the FCO's core foreign policy functions. Given the resource constraints facing the FCO, however, there is doubt whether the department can achieve the Government's ambitions for enhanced commercial work while maintaining its core foreign policy functions at the required standard. The committee regards the FCO's network of overseas posts as integral to the department's ability to discharge its functions, and recommends that the FCO should seek to maintain a global UK presence. The committee also called "confusing" the fact that under the current Government the FCO has three sets of priorities: the Foreign Secretary's, the Cabinet Office's Business Plan for the department, and the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review.
This updated edition of Secret Affairs covers the momentous events of the past year in the Middle East and at home in the UK. It reveals the unreported attempts by Britain to cultivate relations with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the fall of Mubarak, the military intervention on the side of Libyan rebel forces which include pro-al-Qaeda elements, and the ongoing reliance on the region's ultimate fundamentalist state, Saudi Arabia, to safeguard its interest in the Middle East. It illuminates path of Salman Abedi, the bomber who attacked Manchester in May 2017, and his terror network: how he fought in Libya in 2011 as part of a group of fighters which the UK allowed to leave the country to go and battle against Gadafi to topple him. In this ground-breaking book, Mark Curtis reveals the covert history of British collusion with radical Islamic and terrorist groups. Secret Affairs shows how governments since the 1940s have connived with militant forces to control oil resources and overthrow governments. The story of how Britain has helped nurture the rise of global terrorism has never been told.
This report looks at operations in Afghanistan since 2006 and makes further recommendations for the anticipated draw-down of forces. UK Forces were deployed in Helmand Province in Afghanistan for three years from 2006 without the necessary personnel, equipment or intelligence to succeed in their mission. Mistakes were made as a result of a failure in military and political coordination. The decision to move UK Armed Forces into the South of Afghanistan in early 2006 was not fully thought through. The Committee is concerned that the MoD did not anticipate that the presence of the Armed Forces in Helmand might stir up a hornets' nest, especially as much of the intelligence was contradictory. Senior military advisers should have drawn attention to the need for force levels to be sufficiently robust to cope with an unpredictable conflict. The Committee is disturbed that the Secretary of State was told that commanders on the ground were content with the support they were being given in Helmand when clearly they were not. After only a matter of months in Helmand, the nature of the UK Mission changed, with serious strategic implications. The MoD did not respond quickly enough to changes in Taliban tactics. The MoD should prioritise the protection of personnel. The Government's room for manoeuvre regarding the number of troops that could be withdrawn from Afghanistan as part of an immediate transition is necessarily limited. More emphasis needs to be placed on capacity building within the political system if long-term success is to be achieved.