Exclusive: Investment Giant in Talks to Buy Blackwater

Cerberus Capital Management could have invested $200 million for a stake in Blackwater, said a source close to the negotiations. Other sources said auditors from Cerberus had been examining Blackwater's books since the beginning of the year. Cerberus, which owns a controlling stake in Chrysler had been in negotiations to buy the controversial security firm Blackwater USA, which has millions of dollars in U.S. government contracts in Iraq, according to sources familiar with the talks. Other sources said auditors from Cerberus had been examining Blackwater's books since the beginning of the year.

read more | digg story

UK Defence squeezed as MoD is struggling to match its many missions

British defence policy is coming apart at the seams. Having tried to bring order to a chaotic system of arms procurement, the government is to revert to bad habits. The Ministry of Defence plans to scrap its biennial budget cycle and go back to planning on a yearly basis. Successive Labour governments have fallen victim to unrealistic ambitions that the British armed forces can continue to project power on a tight budget.

read more | digg story

Contrasting reactions to the piracy problem off Somalia’s coast

On 11 April, French commandos captured several Somali pirates who took hostages the 30 crew members of the luxury yacht le Ponant. Apparently a ransom was privately paid for their release. The French government admitted that they responded militarily to the incident. The pirates captured will be tried in French courts. The French president called for the establishment of an UN-sponsored anti-piracy force. Many other governments are involved in anti-piracy tasks in what has become one of the most dangerous piracy spots on the planet.

Au contraire, in the UK the Royal Navy has been instructed by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because of the risk of breaching their human rights. The Sunday Times further reports that the Foreign Office is also concerned that captured pirates could claim asylum in Great Britain. Feel free to reach your own conclusions. The Foreign Office is headed by David Miliband, from planet Zorg. The latest entry on his ill advised official blog, Tale of Two Penalties, deals with soccer results. Naturally, there is not a single entry for two of our own planet’s problems: Somalia and piracy.


The Royal Navy was once the envy of the maritime world. Sea thugs knew their game was over once Royal marines had them on their sight. Fortunately, that mix of respect and fear still lives in the private sector. Many Private Military Companies (PMCs) with maritime capabilities employ former Royal Navy personnel, who increasingly find it that their vocation can only be fully realized on a private capacity. Mr Miliband please continue focusing on the human rights of pirates and let maritime PMCs do their job.

Security contractors seized in Iraq may now be held in Iran

Five British hostages who were kidnapped in Iraq last year may be being held in Tehran, the Iranian capital, according to intelligence reports received by the UK Foreign Office. The disclosure, supported by two security sources in London and officials in Iraq, means that any rescue attempt by British special forces would be almost impossible. The contractors, GardaWorld and BearingPoint employees, have been in captivity since 29 May 2007.

read more | digg story

As we quietly noted on our 25 November post, the possibility for them to be held in Iran already lingered heavily in the air. This could explain the apparent reluctance of the UK government to give the issue the public prominence it deserves. Coincidentally, the story was relegated to page 8 of the Sunday Times. No official comment was released by either the employers or the Foreign Office.

If you are American, British, or Canadian, please read our Do not forget the Missing Five post and contribute to keep the issue alive.

Foreign Policy in Narrow Bandwidths and Sound Bites

During presidential campaigns, foreign policy pledges (P) can be on many occasions a little detached from the real world. Because the real world as presented by a candidate would often be a summary of what enhances his/her P, let’s call it background (B). How to get to P given B is the plan (X), which can be understood as a collection of bullet points and sound bites likely evolve during the elections year. A flexible X is perfectly valid and probably desirable in light of the volatile international environment we live in and the moulding nature of a candidate’s character (Y) while attempting to reach one and all. Therefore, the question arises of where Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain stand now on the debate about Iraq and security contractors?

Barack Obama

P: Senator Obama promises that he will immediately begin to remove US troops from Iraq. However, his stance towards security contractors deployed in the country remains ambiguous. He has failed to answer whether his proposed troop withdrawal will be accompanied by either a reduction or an increase of security contracting. Now that campaign focus is shifting to economic issues, he has also failed to elaborate on the costs retreat would signify in terms of demobilization expenditure, unfulfilled contractual obligations, and the vacation of US influence in the region.

X: Senator Obama plans to remove one to two combat brigades each month and accomplish withdrawal within 16 months. Evidently this plan involves that all other variables would remain equal (Mr. Obama’s B), which accounts for one of the most common oversights on foreign policy making. Gordon Brown made a similar pledge before becoming Prime Minister. His government has nonetheless announced that gradual withdrawal has been effectively put on hold due to the deteriorating security situation in Basra. In addition, Mr. Obama argues that he would engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society in order to accomplish his plan. Does Mr. Obama believe this is not part of the current strategy and that Iraqis would suddenly start listening to him?

Y: The angry outbursts of some of Senator Obama’s associates are worrying. Let’s hope that if elected he will be more selective of his confidants and advisers.

Hillary Clinton

P: In a more detailed manner, Senator Clinton promises the same as Obama, that is, phased redeployment at the same time as stability in Iraq is somehow gradually secured during her premiership. In contrast to Obama, her stance towards security contractors has been more hostile than ambiguous, as noted on a previous post. Moreover, same as Obama, she has not addressed the economic implications of swift retreat. Indeed, it is necessary to stress that swift retreat can be more expensive that swift deployment, because in addition to what was noted above large segments of reconstruction infrastructure and investment would need to be written off.

X: Although Senator Clinton’s plan seems to suffer from the same B oversights as Obama’s, she does acknowledge that an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region needs to be part of the plan, which scores on her favour and should be noted. She is also more articulated on her proposal for a wider UN involvement in the reconstruction effort. However, scepticism lingers on the air about the willingness of the UN to play such a large role. Think about the faith of Sudan’s Darfur, a substantially smaller tragedy, if you want to entertain scenarios about broad UN deployment in Iraq.

Y: It is hard to tell what Senator Clinton was thinking when implying that she was deeply involved in the Northern Ireland peace process and that bullets flew over her head when landing in the Balkans in the 1990s.

John McCain

P: Senator McCain’s pledge is a textbook case of realist strategy: more troops bringing more security and more security facilitating political and economic reconstruction. His public stance towards security contractors and their role on his proposal remain underdeveloped. Yet, if elected, there are reasons to suspect they will continue to play an important role on the reconstruction strategy. Nevertheless, we believe he has failed to coherently set ceilings to his pledge in terms of budget, timeframe, and troop numbers and rotation.

X: Senator McCain points out the need to bolster troops on the ground, implement new counterinsurgency strategy, strengthen the Iraqi armed forces and police, keep senior US officers in place, and call for international pressure on Syria and Iran. The multilateralism he increasingly talks about, however, has so far not been fully integrated into his P as well as the necessary diplomatic rounds associated with it.

Y: We modestly suggest that Senator McCain develops ‘straight talk’ for a younger audience and straight talk his campaign team into getting to grips with internet optimization and social networking.