DOCSLIB.ORG

The New British Imperialism in the Persian Gulf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The New British Imperialism in the Persian Gulf The new British imperialism in the Persian Gulf War on Want fights against the root causes of poverty and human rights violation, as part of the worldwide movement for global justice. We do this by: • working in partnership with grassroots social movements, trade unions and workers’ organisations to empower people to fight for their rights • running hard-hitting popular campaigns against the root causes of poverty and human rights violation • mobilising support and building alliances for political action in support of human rights, especially workers’ rights • raising public awareness of the root causes of poverty, inequality and injustice, and empowering people to take action for change Join us! The success of our work relies on inspiring people to join the fight against poverty and human rights abuse. Get involved with our work: Visit waronwant.org/donate Email [email protected] Call 020 7324 5040 Write to War on Want 44-48 Shepherdess Walk London N1 7JP facebook.org/waronwant @waronwant Preface 01 British governments have long connected network of British state and regarded the Gulf states as ‘vital corporate actors operating in the Gulf region, partners’ in securing the UK’s energy focused on ensuring ‘stabilisation’ and ‘internal security and military interests. Yet the security’ through the export of materiel and strategic importance of the Persian training which is used for the purposes of Gulf is taking on a new significance, internal repression. with the UK government in the process of building a permanent presence in the From the training of sniper units to the sale region and establishing a dedicated of CS gas, and from the delivery of covert British Defence Staff to oversee it. surveillance technologies to the provision of Coordinating this new level of strategic public order training, British officials and engagement is the ‘Gulf Strategy Unit’, corporations, working closely together, are a group which includes a range of public playing a key role in arming repression intelligence and security agencies, but throughout the Gulf. In this renewed military which operates in secret. and economic strategy, guaranteeing the UK’s continuing access to natural resources takes Central to the UK government’s new precedence over any publicly stated strategy is the establishment of a network of commitment to democracy and human rights. facilities and partnerships designed to secure a permanent British military presence in the It is up to the British people to hold the UK Gulf. New and enlarged bases in countries government and UK corporations such as Dubai, Oman and Bahrain will enable accountable for their ongoing complicity in the UK to present a more assertive position human rights abuses around the world. All in the region, and to safeguard the all- readers of this report are encouraged to take important outward flow of gas and oil. At the action to end UK complicity in the repression same time, British arms companies continue faced by social movements in the Gulf region. to sell vast amounts of weaponry to support Please ask your MP to write to the Prime the Gulf states’ own military expansion. Since Minister with the demands listed at the end 2010, the UK government has approved over of this report. Together we can shine a light 6,000 individual export licences to arms on this latest chapter in the long history of companies serving the region, with a British imperialism. combined value of £16 billion. This War on Want report documents the findings of an investigation which has examined British complicity in state violence in the Gulf, and which uncovers a disturbing truth at the heart of Britain’s foreign policy. John Hilary There exists today an opaque and loosely Executive Director Contents 02 1. Neo-imperialism in the Gulf 03 2. New strategic presence 05 3. Training and assistance 07 The new British imperialism in the Persian Gulf 4. Repressive technologies 11 Arming Repression: 5. Mapping the companies 13 6. Conclusions and recommendations 17 1Neo-imperialism in the Gulf 03 As the Chilcot Inquiry made clear The UK has, for decades, focused on when it reported in July 2016, UK combating regional forces which prove involvement in the invasion and resistant to British and American interests. occupation of Iraq was disastrous in British intelligence was central to the 1953 every way. With hundreds of thousands overthrow of the democratically elected of ordinary Iraqis dead, political and Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, economic instability entrenched, and after he began nationalising the Iranian oil Islamic State in control of large swathes industry. The Iranian Revolution in 1979 of the country, the failures of the Blair challenged US and UK dominance in the administration have been laid out in region, as did the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam impressive detail for all to see. in 1990. Today, a bewildering array of armed Islamist groups operate across the region, What the Inquiry failed to do, however, was opposed to the presence of Western forces. place the Iraq War and occupation within the context of the broader neo-imperial Containing or destroying this opposition project which has characterised UK strategy has been a core focus of UK strategy, as towards the region since the end of formal has guaranteeing the survival of regimes Empire in the aftermath of the Second considered friendly to British interests. This World War. This project, which has found a neo-imperial strategy has sought to secure a new urgency among the British foreign policy range of interests, circulating around access and defence establishment in recent years, to the region’s crucial markets, bases and has seen the UK play a highly interventionist resources. Most obviously, securing access to, role in the region, both in support of the and control over, the huge oil deposits in the USA and independently. region is considered to be of vital importance. British forces in Basra, Iraq © British Army official photographer/ IWM official photographer/ Army © British 04 British oil companies are operating Pro-democracy protests have been targeted throughout the region, and the UK economy with indiscriminating force, human rights is hugely reliant on oil imports: around 40% groups have been subjected to widespread of current consumption is imported, a figure state surveillance, and the torture and due to rise to around 75% by 2030.1 In this extrajudicial execution of dissidents has light, the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf become even more prevalent than before.5 is considered to be a priority of UK strategy, Ruling regimes across the Gulf region have given that significant disruption would pose used the excuse of ‘internal security’ and immediate economic disaster. the threat from ‘extremism’ and ‘terrorism’ to justify their violent crackdown on a wide The new British imperialism in the Persian Gulf The UK’s interest in the Gulf is about more range of political movements. than oil. Securing access to other markets, including defence and construction, also The UK government, and British arms and drives UK strategy towards the Gulf, as does, security companies, are deeply implicated in increasingly, ensuring that the UK is preferred the continuing state violence across the Gulf, Arming Repression: as a site for Gulf investment.2 Having a secured despite an official narrative which stresses military presence in the region also enables the support for democracy and human rights. UK to project its power beyond into Africa, the This involvement is no mistake: support for Indian Ocean and Asia. Indeed, imperial strategy the region’s governments in their fight against throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries ‘internal instability’ has been a central plank of saw the main value in the Gulf protectorates British foreign policy in the Gulf for decades. as providing a springboard to defend the During the years of formal British empire in the Suez Canal, as well as lines of shipping, Gulf (up until 1971), and during the subsequent communication and defence through to postcolonial phase, the UK has played a key imperial territory in India and South-East Asia. role in stabilising governments considered friendly to British interests. This continues This logic remains, with the UK government’s today, and has accelerated in recent years as 2015 National Security Strategy and Strategic Whitehall has identified ‘stabilisation’ as central Defence and Security Review (SDSR) stating to its Gulf strategy in the near future. that the UK needs to be positioned so as to ensure ‘the sea lanes stay open and the British and American dominance in the Gulf arteries of global commerce remain free is ensured through both a direct military flowing’.3 In this, the UK plays a supporting presence across the region, and through role to US hegemony in the Gulf, and one bolstering the capacity of client states to which is likely to become more active as ensure domestic stability. British strategy has America ‘pivots’ towards Asia.4 centred on arming and training police and security forces across the region in order to maintain internal security. This strategy Ensuring 'stability' is not just government-led: there is an In the years since the start of the so-called increasing involvement of private security ‘Arab Spring’ in 2010, attempts by civil society companies and defence contractors working groups across the Gulf region to challenge hand-in-glove with the British foreign policy longstanding authoritarian rule have been and defence establishment as the privatisation met with brutal force by the state. of war continues to pick up pace.6 2New strategic presence 0500 Today, we are witnessing a rapid military presence’ in the region, and establishing upswing in British military and strategic a new British Defence Staff dedicated to the commitment to the Persian Gulf, Gulf.7 Coordinating this new level of strategic intended primarily to secure engagement is the ‘Gulf Strategy Unit’: a highly the uninterrupted flow of oil from secretive group which includes a range of the region, as well as access to markets intelligence and security agencies.8 Despite and resources.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 28 May 2011 1 the UK Arms Trade Complex and Freedom
    28th May 2011 The UK Arms Trade Complex and Freedom of Information A case for an enhanced presumption of transparency in the case of corruption in arms deals Barnaby Pace 28th May 2011 Abstract The trade in arms is thought of by many states as a key factor in the maintenance of their national security. This is true in either selling arms abroad or procuring weapons and equipment for use by national forces. Sadly however, the arms trade is one of the most corrupt businesses on earth, accounting for forty percent of all corruption worldwide according to one estimate. The purpose of the arms trade is to create weapons with the power to kill and maim, and with this the consequences of corruption are especially destructive. The prevalence and extreme danger of corruption in the arms trade justifies a greater level of transparency and accountability. However governments have long considered the arms trade to be essential to national security and too often regard anti-corruption efforts as a threat not only to their arms production capacity but also their security and international relations. This threat to international relations is itself premised on the perception of national security being dependent on military or intelligence co-operation with other countries founded, which in turn is founded on arms deals. Arms deals have become seen as a legitimate and unquestionable diplomatic tool whether the arms are sold corruptly or not. This paper examines three disputed cases around the British governmental involvement in the sale of arms and associated services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Deal Worth Defending? the Uk's Arms Trade and the War in Yemen 01 Executive Summary
    A DEAL WORTH DEFENDING? THE UK'S ARMS TRADE AND THE WAR IN YEMEN 01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Research conducted by War Child UK has revealed that UK arms companies are reaping double the revenues previously estimated1 from arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition of countries fighting a brutal war in Yemen, and waging a bombing campaign that has killed and maimed thousands of children. This has contributed to a humanitarian crisis that has left millions more on the brink of starvation. The Saudi-led coalition is emboldened to carry out these attacks by the military and diplomatic support it receives from countries like the UK. Yet despite this crisis, and evidence that British weapons are being used to violate international humanitarian law in Yemen,2 the UK Government continues to grant export licences for arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The only winners from this immoral trade are the big arms companies and their shareholders, reaping huge profits while children are killed, disfigured and starved to death. This must stop. Two years of civil war in Yemen has seen an estimated 1,300 children killed and 2,000 more injured, 212 schools attacked3 and medical facilities destroyed. A crippling physical and economic blockade has been imposed on the country by the Saudi-led coalition: this has destroyed the economy, stopped vital food imports, and created a humanitarian crisis that has left the country on the verge of famine and in the grip of a cholera epidemic.4 Whilst atrocities have been committed by both sides, a large majority
    [Show full text]
  • The United Kingdom's Arms Export Licensing Process
    The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, ISSN 1749-852X Stavrianakis, Arms export licensing p. 32 © www.epsjournal.org.uk – Vol. 3, No. 1 (2008) Licensed to kill: the United Kingdom’s arms overarching argument is that the government’s export control guidelines do not restrict the arms trade in any meaningful way but, rather, serve predominantly a export licensing process legitimating function. Overview of the arms export licensing process Anna Stavrianakis The Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria (hereafter, he United Kingdom is one of the more significant actors in the international Consolidated Criteria) form the main regulatory mechanism for U.K. arms exports, arms trade. Between 2001 and 2005 it was the world’s fifth largest supplier of setting out the government’s commitment to be guided in its arms export activity by Tmajor conventional weapons, behind Russia, the United States, France, and concerns regarding the state’s international commitments, human rights, the internal Germany, and the world’s fifth largest recipient of arms, behind China, India, Greece, situation in the recipient country, regional stability, U.K. national security, the 1 and the United Arab Emirates. The U.K. government supports arms exports because recipient state’s attitude to terrorism and international law, the risk of diversion, and of the economic, strategic, and political benefits they ostensibly bring. It also claims sustainable development.4 The licensing process is administered and controlled by the to operate a very strict control regime based on the 2002 Export Control Act and a set Export Control Organization (ECO), which sits within the Department for Business, of guidelines known as the Consolidated Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • A Shameful Relationship Uk Complicity in Saudi State Violence
    A SHAMEFUL RELATIONSHIP UK COMPLICITY IN SAUDI STATE VIOLENCE DAVID WEARING • APRIL 2016 CONTENTS Summary 5 1 Introduction 7 2 Saudi state violence at home and abroad 9 Yemen – complicity in indiscriminate killing Bahrain – crushing the ‘Arab Spring’ Domestic repression – the extremist state 3 The UK-Saudi relationship 14 Background Al Yamamah Al Salam MODSAP & SANGCOM UK government promotion of the arms trade How the government handles questions of corruption 4 Major deals and overall trends 21 Major deals Mapping Saudi’s suppliers 5 UK export controls 25 Unlawful exports Facilitating internal repression 6 A poor deal all-round 28 Undermining democracy Undermining security Ignoring better economic alternatives 7 Conclusion 31 Abbreviations 33 Cover images Royal Saudi Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons: Credit:Clément Alloing / Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Union Jack: Credit: edgenumbers / Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 A Shameful Relationship: UK complicity in Saudi state violence 3 SUMMARY “While an arms embargo is needed now, it was clear long before the intervention in Yemen that arms sales One year into the intervention in the civil conflict in Yemen by a Saudi- led military coalition, 6,400 people have been killed, half of them civilians, to the Saudi regime were including 900 children, and more than 30,000 people have been injured. The large majority of these casualties have been caused by Coalition air dangerous and immoral. strikes in a campaign where combat aircraft supplied by the United Kingdom have played a significant role. Leading human rights organisations have documented a pattern of violations against international law committed There can be no justification by the Coalition.
    [Show full text]
  • Army Denied Vital Equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, Claims Former SAS Head
    Www.telegraph.co.ukBy Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent10:21PM GMT 04 Mar 2010 Army denied vital equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, claims former SAS head British troops were deprived of the right equipment to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and were still being hampered by a lack of resources, the former head of special forces has claimed. The coffins of Private Martin Kinggett, Sergeant Paul Fox, Private Carlo Apolis and SAC Luke Southgate carried onto an RAF C17 at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan Photo: MoD/GETTY In a withering assessment of the “doomed” state of the military, the recently retired Lt Gen Sir Graeme Lamb said that the SAS had been denied even Vietnam-era equipment that could have saved lives. Resources remained insufficient to fight current and future conflicts, with much of the Army’s equipment “either broken or lacking”, he warned. Sir Graeme’s attack, in a speech to senior officers, is disclosed as Gordon Brown faces questions at the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war. The inquiry has been told that the Armed Forces were forced to cope without a wide range of equipment because of a lack of funds from the Treasury when Mr Brown was chancellor. General Lord Gurthrie of Craigiebank, who was chief of the defence staff from 1997 to 2001, also said soldiers died in Afghanistan because Gordon Brown starved the Army of funding when he was Chancellor. “Not fully funding the Army in the way they had asked ... undoubtedly cost the lives of soldiers. He should be asked why he was so unsympathetic towards defence and so sympathetic to other departments,” he told The Times.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconciliation and Reintegration What Is Reconciliation? What Is Reintegration?
    Afghanistan Policy Page 6 April A one-page brief from the Afghanistan Congressional Communications Hub on a major 2010 issue concerning U.S. policy and engagement in Afghanistan. Reconciliation and Reintegration What is Reconciliation? What is Reintegration? Reconciliation aims to engage senior insurgents in order Reintegration involves the process of low- and mid-level insurgents to achieve a settlement between all key parties and end laying down their weapons and rejoining Afghan society. the insurgency. The process is targeted at local insurgent ‘foot soldiers’ who are often Experts observe that reconciliation is one of the most believed to only be fighting to earn money or because they feel there difficult and complex challenges of the Afghan campaign. is no better option for them, with many operating on a part-time or seasonal basis. There are many opinions on how this process should be carried out. Amongst the issues that remain unclear are: A Peace and Reintegration Program, funded by international donors, who should lead the process is still in development. It will be led by an Afghan official. Analysts what role the international community should play observe that the nature of reintegration at the ground level may present issues for coordination of the process. whether the process involves a ‘grand bargain’ or should constitute informal, incremental steps U.S. officials have pointed out that a key component to the process – towards building trust shared by the Afghan government and its international partners – is to provide protection and jobs for the former fighters in order to what the expected timeframe should look like encourage more to join the trend.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of UK-Manufactured Arms in Yemen
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee The use of UK-manufactured arms in Yemen Fourth Report of Session 2016–17 HC 688 House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee The use of UK-manufactured arms in Yemen Fourth Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 September 2016 HC 688 Published on 15 September 2016 by authority of the House of Commons The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Crispin Blunt MP (Conservative, Reigate) (Chair) Mr John Baron MP (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay) Ann Clwyd MP (Labour, Cynon Valley) Mike Gapes MP (Labour (Co-op), Ilford South) Stephen Gethins MP (Scottish National Party, North East Fife) Mr Mark Hendrick MP (Labour (Co-op), Preston) Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Daniel Kawczynski MP (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham) Yasmin Qureshi MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Andrew Rosindell MP (Conservative, Romford) Nadhim Zahawi MP (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/facom and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry page of the Committee’s website.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Key Recommendations
    UKA0009 Written evidence submitted by Control Arms UK Summary of Key Recommendations Mandate and scope of CAEC. Control Arms UK recommends that: . The CAEC in future explicitly references issues of major topical concern, includes as a standing item in its inquiries ‘licences/destinations of concern’, and takes full advantage of the UK’s system of quarterly reporting in the scope of its inquiries . The CAEC considers establishing itself as a separate, standalone select committee Arms exports to Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen . The CAEC should seek detailed evidence from the government on: ­ the scale and nature of arms delivered under open licences to Saudi Arabia since March 2015 ­ their legal interpretation of a “serious violation of IHL”, key to risk assessment under criterion 2c ­ their basis for requiring a “pattern” of serious violations of IHL to be necessary to create a risk of a single violation in future ­ how they interpret the word “pattern”, including in light of the UN determination that such a pattern exists in Yemen ­ the new risk assessment methodology used in arms licensing (as no detailed explanation has, to date, been forthcoming from the government) ­ exactly how many incidents recorded in the MOD ‘Tracker’ are regarded as likely cases of violations of international law Examples of other problematic destinations . The CAEC should seek from the government: ­ detailed evidence on the scale and nature of arms delivered to Egypt, Turkey and UAE, and on the grounds for determining that none of these approved transfers were problematic under the Consolidated Criteria ­ clarity about whether and how the new risk assessment methodology was applied to these destinations Countries subject to trade restrictions The CAEC should ask the government to provide: .
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of UK‑Manufactured Arms in Yemen
    House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills and International Development Committees The use of UK‑manufactured arms in Yemen First Joint Report of the Business, Innovation and Skills and International Development Committees of Session 2016–17 Fifth Report of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee of Session 2016–17 Third Report of the International Development Committee of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 September 2016 HC 679 Published on 15 September 2016 by authority of the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Current membership Mr Iain Wright MP (Labour, Hartlepool) (Chair) Paul Blomfield MP (Labour, Sheffield Central) Richard Fuller MP (Conservative, Bedford) Peter Kyle MP (Labour, Hove) Amanda Milling MP (Conservative, Cannock Chase) Jonathan Reynolds MP (Labour (Co-op), Stalybridge and Hyde) Amanda Solloway MP (Conservative, Derby North) Michelle Thomson MP (Independent, Edinburgh West) Kelly Tolhurst MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Craig Tracey MP (Conservative, North Warwickshire) Chris White MP (Conservative, Warwick and Leamington) International Development Committee The International Development Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Thinking Defence to Meet New Threats
    House of Commons Defence Committee Re-thinking defence to meet new threats Tenth Report of Session 2014–15 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 17 March 2015 HC 512 Published on 24 March 2015 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies Current membership Rory Stewart MP (Conservative, Penrith and The Border) (Chair) Richard Benyon MP (Conservative, Newbury) Rt Hon Jeffrey M. Donaldson MP (Democratic Unionist, Lagan Valley) Mr James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Mr Dai Havard MP (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) Dr Julian Lewis MP (Conservative, New Forest East) Mrs Madeleine Moon MP (Labour, Bridgend) Sir Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Bob Stewart MP (Conservative, Beckenham) Ms Gisela Stuart MP (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston) Derek Twigg MP (Labour, Halton) John Woodcock MP (Labour/Co–op, Barrow and Furness) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in the House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/defcom and by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the Committee’s website on the inquiry page. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are James Rhys (Clerk), Leoni Kurt (Second Clerk), Eleanor Scarnell (Committee Specialist), Ian Thomson (Committee Specialist), Christine Randall (Senior Committee Assistant), Alison Pratt and Carolyn Bowes (Committee Assistants).
    [Show full text]
  • The Nexus Between Cybersecurity and Biosecurity Winning the Peace Series
    1 THE NEXUS BETWEEN CYBERSECURITY AND BIOSECURITY WHITE PAPER ​ ​ ​ ___________________________________________ KEY INSIGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WINNING THE PEACE SERIES 13 MAY 2020 ​ ​ HOSTED BY C5 CAPITAL 1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20006 SAVILE ROW HOUSE 7 VIGO STREET LONDON W1S 3HF Strictly Private & Confidential WINNING THE PEACE | BIOSECURITY NEXUS WHITE PAPER | 2 ​ ​ ​ This report is based on discussions that took place during the inaugural Winning the Peace ​ discussion on Wednesday, May 13th. We virtually convened a talented group of over 80 technologists, military, government and industry leaders, including Gen. Jim Mattis, Bud MacFarlane, Adm. Mike Hewitt, Former Congressman Pat Tiberi, and Gen. Jim Keffer for a strategic discussion on The Nexus Between Cybersecurity and Biosecurity. All of our ​ ​ ​ participants share a commitment to the US-UK alliance as a channel for preserving our sovereignty, security and prosperity toward a more resilient future. The event opened with remarks by André Pienaar, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of C5 Capital, sharing his prediction that the biosecurity sector will become as large as the cybersecurity sector in the near future. It was moderated by Sir Graeme Lamb, C5 Operating Partner & Former Director of UK Special Forces, and featured expert panelists Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, OBE RE(V) and Brigham B. Bechtel. The Winning the Peace series is hosted by C5 Capital, a specialist venture capital firm. Throughout the series, our goal is to convene technologists, military, government and industry leaders to consider pillars of a post Covid-19 world order, rooted in the opportunity we consider for UK and US partnerships.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker Biographies
    SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES PROFESSOR MICHAEL BURLEIGH is a Research Professor at University of Buckingham, and taught at Oxford, LSE, Rutgers, Stanford and Cardiff in his twenty year academic career as a historian. His thirteen books include The Third Reich: A New History (Samuel Johnson Prize 2001) and most recently Small Wars, Faraway Places: The Genesis of the Modern World 1945-65 (long listed for the Samuel Johnson Prize 2014). His books have been translated into 24 languages. In 2012 he won the Nonino "International Master of His Time Prize" for his life’s work. He is a regular commentator on global affairs and terrorism in the Times, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. He is the founder of the geopolitical risk company Sea Change Partners LLP which he set up with George Walden four years ago. LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIR GRAEME LAMB is a former Director of UK Special Forces and Commander of the British Field Army. With a reputation for ‘blasphemous plain speaking’, he is widely recognised for his intimate appreciation for Hobbes’s view of man with his articulation of ‘reconcilable and irreconcilable’ actors in modern conflict. He graduated from The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1973 and went on to command at every rank on operations leading Conventional, Airborne and Special Forces. Working with others: Lamb has, by dint of his appointments, found himself not only operating overseas but nearly always with and alongside others, in particular the United States Special Forces. This ranged from small-scale Counter-Narcotics operations in South America, Persons Indicted for War Crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Deputy Commanding General Multi-National Forces Iraq under US General David Petraeus.
    [Show full text]