WHATEVER IT IS I AM AGAINST IT!

When it comes to the devolution of control of our countries natural resources, the Silk recommendations are quire far reaching, with recommendations in relation to energy, water, the Crown estates and marine licensing (both inshore and off shore). This may explain why some of the usual Red Tory suspects, following perhaps the politics of Groucho Marx rather than Karl, are against it. Taken as a whole, if they are accepted by Westminster, the recommendations will both stabilise and develop the devolutionary settlement as it applies to Wales.

In relation to energy, Silk has recommend that all energy planning consents (non-renewable and renewable) below 350 MW should be devolved (currently the threshold is 100 MW). I can see no reason why the National Assembly's powers over planning consent for energy developments to projects generating 350 MW or less should be limited. The Commission recommended that the UK Government should have a statutory duty to take account of Welsh planning policies when exercising its retained responsibilities for larger projects – this perhaps might be a first.

Silk has also recommended that responsibility for issuing marine licences in Welsh offshore waters should be devolved. The Welsh Government should receive parity with Scotland and Northern Ireland for the proposed Contracts for Difference from 2017. Things get particularly interesting when it comes to control of water resources, with Silk recommending that the boundary for legislative competence should be aligned with the national border, with further work to assess costs and benefits for consumers and the industry.

The news that the Secretary of State’s intervention powers in relation to water should be removed in favour of a formal intergovernmental protocol should remove yet another ‘negative’ power from a cabinet position that is rapidly losing any real relevance. Along with finally sorting out the remaining water related anomalies, further powers over sewerage are also recommended to be devolved to the National Assembly, which makes sense.

At first glance, the Silk recommendations in relation the accountability of the Crown Estates, don’t necessarily appear to amount to much, but, potentially further down the line they may well have a significant impact in conjunction with the other recommended transfer of powers in relation to energy and water resources. Silk has recommended that in relation to the Crown Estate, a Welsh Crown Estate Commissioner should be appointed, in consultation with the Welsh Government.

This is a sensible step which should enable the potential for investment in Wales to be maximised, the new Commissioner should be supported by a Crown Estate office in Wales, subject to meeting value-for-money criteria. Silk has also recommended that the existing executive responsibilities of Welsh Ministers for marine conservation and licensing in the Welsh inshore area should be extended to the Welsh offshore area.

All in all, if the recommendations are accepted by Westminster (and the devolution of further powers actually takes place) in relation to energy, water, offshore responsibilities and the Crown estates then a significant step will have been taken towards giving the National Assembly the tools to do the job. While I think that we should wholeheartedly welcome the Silk commission’s recommendation of devolution of extra powers, but, find that part of me wonders what might have accomplished in Wales, if we had the tools to do the job and the political will.

SOMEWHERE BETWEEN TRAGEDY AND FARCE

When it comes to the Afghan tragedy, a few quotes spring to mind, Karl Marx said "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." Winston Churchill said, "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it" and “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” When it comes to Afghanistan there is more than enough history to provide enough examples of what to do and what to avoid.

A scene from the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan

The long and bloody history of Afghanistan is littered literally with the would-be invaders who came to grief and eventually through in the towel and admitted defeat. This week, almost unnoticed an anniversary passed, Wednesday 15th May was the twenty-fifth anniversary of the start of the then Soviet Union’s nine month long withdrawal from Afghanistan. Around 100,000 Soviet troops had left the war torn country by February 15, 1989. This was the conclusion to ten years of brutal warfare which had killed over 14,000 Soviet soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Afghan combatants and civilians.

Learning the lesson of history?

NATO forces have been on the ground in Afghanistan since the 7th October 2001, and preparations for NATO’s withdrawal (to be completed by 2014) are proceeding apace. Unlike their Soviet predecessors who treated much of Afghanistan as free fire zone, NATO forces have been relatively restrained when it comes to using their firepower. Despite this many people have argued that just like their Soviet predecessors NATO troops in Afghanistan now find themselves engaged in waging a campaign which is "unwinnable in military terms".

‘Lessons from Afghanistan’s History for the Current Transition and Beyond’ is a thought provoking paper produced by the MOD Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre makes interesting reading.  The paper has noted that between 1933 to 1973, Afghanistan was stable and reasonably effectively governed, however, that stability was firmly anchored in the two pillars of traditional local governance and the Afghan state such as it was a weak centralized though weak state, both of which were gravely damaged after 1978.

Afghanistan history’s is littered with a series of chronic succession problems and associated conflict, the next presidential election, if successful, would be the first peaceful transfer of leadership since 1933 and only the fourth since 1747. The paper also notes that any expectations about the pace of any progress and reform should be modest and the dangers of overly ambitious reforms leading to violent reactions need to be recognized.

‘A new approach to understanding Afghanistan’s transition’ has been produced by the United States Institute for Peace also makes interesting reading. This paper by way of comparison with other countries who have passed though conflict, significant military intervention and  a post conflict period of transition looks at Afghanistan and its preparedness for life after NATO. Amongst the key issues that this report flags up is the issue of foreign aid and its impact on Afghanistan.

Another military withdrawal from Afghanistan 

Of late there has been a relative flood of papers from a whole range of military and civilian institutes studying and analysing what has happen and what may happen in Afghanistan as NATO prepares to leave. While our soldiers and their families and many Afghans may carry the physical and mental scars for decades, the politicians (at least in the West) will probably do their best to air brush Afghanistan and the consequences of NATO’s intervention out of site and out of mind.

As someone who has had relatives who have served a number of tours in Afghanistan and have come back in one piece I will (no doubt along with more than a few other people) be more than grateful when the last NATO soldier hops on the last plane and comes home. Following NATO’S withdrawal I have little doubt that what will follow will be a public redefinition of ‘success’ at least as it is applied to Afghanistan. Quite where that leaves the Afghans and Afghan women's rights whatever future they face with a still active Taliban, rampant corruption and a curtailing of foreign aid remains to be seen, but nowhere good I suspect.