Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

There are two kinds of foreign policy, proactive and reactive. Proactive is when a country controls its own policy; reactive is when it is tossed about by events. This blog does not need to specify the mess in which the UK now finds itself. There is also within the proactive option the strategic view and the tactical action. For many years UK and Western foreign policy has been flawed in these two elements, leading to the greatest string of military and diplomatic failures since World War I. Armed interventions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan have led to eventual collapse and fragmentation of the states involved; that in Afghanistan will begin to gather pace when NATO quits. Backing disparate and disunited rebel groups in Syria has not only failed to topple Assad, but it has led to the rise of IS.

The Islamic State is now top of the in-tray of every Western leader and Arab ruler; also it causes anxiety in Tehran, Ankara and Moscow. The problem becomes compounded by the fact that Arab states allied to the West are the ones funding IS and in order to check the never ending advance of this new phenomenon on the map, the West and the Arab rulers ( including those who fund it and are now frightened by their creation) will need to walk in step with both Tehran and Moscow. Meanwhile Egypt is allied with Israel in its confrontation with Hamas, which though Sunni, is supported by Iran.

The geopolitics of the Middle East, expected to develop into a happy bunch of pluralist democracies following the Arab Spring, has done nothing of the kind. Indeed it now resembles a house ransacked by burglars; chaos everywhere. To get back to some form of normality can now be the only strategic objective of policy and nothing less will end the appalling suffering and atrocities now engulfing civilian populations in all sectors. First it is necessary to make a list of all the states which remain intact and under coherent government. They are Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey and yes, Israel. All are meddlars of one sort and another and all have played a part in creating the pickle now threatening everyone. To control this debacle all become de-facto allies of each other and all are then allies of the West. A more realistic look at state borders will be essential to sort everything out.

And the West has to recognise that it needs its old ally from Napoleonic times, WWI and WWII; Russia. A positive sign is the meeting between the foreign ministers of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France to try and find a way forward in eastern Ukraine. Some progress is reported. It is also interesting to note who was not there. The lights of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office need to burn 24/7. Never before has it been so wrong.  About everything.

Passions are running high across the world over the suffering in Gaza among the tight packed civilian population, especially the women and children. There is near universal shock at the large death toll, many times greater than that suffered by the Israelis. Militarily Israel has the upper hand and its defence forces and missile systems have been able to keep its own civilian population almost casualty free. Objectively this might be a source of praise, yet outside its homeland, Israel is now more unpopular across the world than at any time in its history. Jewish people everywhere feel the rise of anti-semitism. Bewildered they feel thrown back into fearful times past.

Moreover, the military objective of this apparently disproportionate campaign directed by the Israeli government, the stopping of the launch of rockets into their country, has not been achieved. At the end of each ceasefire, the rockets fly up once more. If you put together the destruction of Israel’s reputation and the military failure, you have a disaster. Everyone except the Israelis can see this. Soon it will strike home to them also, as  refugees from Europe once again flee to its sanctuary, not in hope to forge a new nation, but in fear from one thought a friend. That is what anti-semitism does.

Meanwhile Hamas, on its last legs at the start of this campaign, is now riding high. The population of Gaza has defiantly turned back to the movement with which before it was fed up. The world now has a clear picture of the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, not just in terms of the recent bombardment, but over the constricting and permanent blockade. The only country in the world which does not support them is the new hard line government in Egypt. They are trying to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas. Yet the irony is that the bar of what Hamas will accept is now far higher than it was before the fighting started and most of the world is behind them. Indeed most of the world has lost patience with Israel.

Time for the Israeli cabinet to sack a few generals for this strategic military failure?

Or time for Israeli voters to sack the government for the whole fiasco?

Or time for all sides to face the reality that when the choice is between permanent peace and everlasting war, there is only one choice worth making?

We shall have to wait and see.

The West is nervous of the contents of the Russian convoy, now headed for Ukraine supposedly to bring humanitarian aid to the civilians cut off by the fighting between separatists and Kiev forces. The fear is of a Trojan horse carrying arms and ammunition within the food and other supplies.

First of all the people hiding in cellars and woods as fighting rages around them, without food and fuel and water, represent a humanitarian emergency, regardless of whose side anybody is on. They deserve and should get aid. The Russians are best placed to supply this and their convoy should be allowed through. There is a risk it is carrying ammunition or even weapons and military personnel, but the West can afford that risk; if Russia were found to be smuggling weapons in white lorries it would be hugely damaging to Putin’s credibility.

On the other hand if the convoy is stopped, it would provide a pretext for Russian military intervention to open a humanitarian corridor, very much on the lines of the operation now being conducted in the Middle East, by the US and Britain and France. Is that what the West wants? Because that is what it will get if it does not proceed with care and realism. Remember there is now an endless list of foreign policy initiatives which have achieved the opposite of the intention.

There is little doubt that Scotland voting Yes would weaken the United Kingdom on the world stage. On the other hand it might force England to confront reality and see itself in a more self assertive and confident frame. Not since I was a child have I called myself, or heard other people call themselves, English. England and English could have a rebirth and stand for something bigger than losing at football. For these reasons this blog is happy to accept either outcome, Yes or No. This is something for Scots to decide. Each side has a good reason to back its argument; indeed they present many. I have chosen my view the best one for each.

YES. If it gains independence the Scottish government has said there will be a written Constitution. This will enshrine the powers of government, the rights of the people and the obligations of the state and the people to each other. This means that the Scottish State will be fundamentally different to the English, which has no written constitution (there are only three states in the world without, Britain, Israel and New Zealand). The effect of this will be to transfer real power from government to governed. The Establishment in an independent Scotland will no longer rule, unlike England where it is all powerful. This is a very good reason to vote Yes.

NO. Scotland’s golden age has been in the Union. It has punched well above its weight, played a decisive part in the expansion of what was the British Empire and provided a string of leading statesmen, including several prime ministers. To better this with independence requires Scotland to be financially independent and that demands a currency. The proposal to force upon a reluctant remainder of the UK a currency union, would require the ceding of economic sovereignty to the largest economy in the currency union, England. The outcome would be less actual independence than that available anyway in what is known as Devo-Max. That would be the better option and it makes sense to vote No to get it.

A grouping of head teachers, supported by some educational management groups, has decided to set up its own league tables, which they believe will more accurately indicate to parents the merits of secondary schools. This may be a good idea; equally it may be a bad and confusing one.

The critical issue, upon which front line judgement of any school must depend, is the academic (or vocational) outcome it achieves for students. In a global world where talent can readily be imported, the UK cannot prosper unless these outcomes are in the very top echelon. Young people who are not provided with the knowledge and skills to shine in some part of the workforce will drift through a life of hardship and indifference, bedeviled with benefit dependency, drugs and crime. Any league table which disguises academic mediocrity within a package of alluring extras will do more harm than good.

Equally important is the measure of what the school is able to add in terms of value to young lives already burdened by disadvantage, including poverty and parental indifference. A school which can offer the hope of escape through knowledge is one far more valuable than another which caters only for the cleverest children from the most advantaged backgrounds, with the most engaged parents.

It is also important that education delivers a more diverse outcome and that this spreads out into public life. We are creating too few engineers and scientists and far too many lawyers. The latter then move into politics to create more laws, thus ensuring vast national resources are channeled into a profession already bloated and overbearing. We also need to explore greater diversity in the background and achievements in those whom we elect to public office or employ in the civil service. There have been far too many failures in public policy over the last twenty five years, especially in economics and foreign affairs, from cabinets and a civil service dominated at the top by the Oxbridge model, for it any longer to be judged uniquely fit for purpose.

If the new tables address these issues well and good. If not they will simply serve to disguise and confuse.

The discount promotion of of Hitler’s First Lady compact paperback will end soon. Special price of £5.99, or currency equivalent, worldwide from Amazon. The  Kindle  of this edition is on sale at £0.77p. Get it now!

Customer Review   ” I really enjoyed this book – fascinating plot that had me gripped. At centre of the story is an Anglo-German family whose loyalties are torn during the second world war. The woman has an affair with Hitler – seems rather far-fetched but the book draws you in and I couldn’t put it down!”

Historical drama spanning more than one hundred years, from its origins at the beginning of the twentieth century to continuing repercussions into the twenty-first. 

‘

AMAZON.UK                                                          AMAZON.COM

To promote the launch of the new compact edition, with a striking new cover, of Hitler’s First Lady in denser type and therefore 100 pages shorter, the paperback will be on  offer  for a short period at the special price of £5.99, or currency equivalent, worldwide from Amazon.  The new Kindle  of this edition will be on sale at £0.77p.  Get it now!

Customer Review   ” I really enjoyed this book – fascinating plot that had me gripped. At centre of the story is an Anglo-German family whose loyalties are torn during the second world war. The woman has an affair with Hitler – seems rather far-fetched but the book draws you in and I couldn’t put it down!”

Historical drama spanning more than one hundred years, from its origins at the beginning of the twentieth century to continuing repercussions into the twenty-first. Here is an extract:

‘And the King?’

Churchill was surprisingly defensive.

‘The King did not want his job. He came within a trice of suffering a nervous breakdown when he was given it. He struggled with his stammer in his new role, as a cricketer with a deficient arm. His courage not only won through but also restored the reputation of the monarchy, now held in high affection. He agrees with the peace whispers of his courtiers and certain politicians, some banished by me to the fringes because of their appeasement tendencies. He has to suffer the nagging of family members, in particular his mother and his youngest brother, to whom he has turned more and more, following the abdication and exile of his eldest. But at all times he has resisted their pleas to act, except as exactly within the terms of the constitution, which he interprets with the strictest propriety, unlike his father who interfered beyond its bounds and his elder brother, who as king, ignored it altogether.’

Churchill took a final puff at his cigar before stubbing it in the glass ashtray.

AMAZON.UK                                                          AMAZON.COM

The Tory party is in a rather disorientated state for the start of an election campaign. At one level the strong economic recovery looks good, but the fact that it is built on household debt, a house price boom and falling living standards, for all not engaged in financial services, guarantees that it will in due course turn bad. The only question is when? Tory cynics believe not until after they have won the general election. Labour realists fear the same thing.

Other factors are now, however, in play. The electorate is much better informed and much better in touch with itself through social media, than at any time before. It no longer trusts politicians. Moreover it actually thinks politicians are liars and people who are on the make, make promises and then break them. So they pay much less attention to campaigns and much more to impressions and to popular personalities. The two most popular personalities in UK politics today are Nigel Farage and Boris.

Farage’s impact on the election campaign is both understood, predictable and feared by most Tories who have not already joined him. Boris’s impact is at times beyond understanding, entirely unpredictable, but welcomed by almost all Tories. The trouble for the Tory HQ is that the only reason for his popularity is the certainty that his ultimate goal is to replace Cameron. After Cameron has lost the election, which Boris believes he will.

That is a bit of a funny atmosphere in which to organise a winning programme, but Downing Street and Tory HQ (where is it now?) are confident they can pull it off. Well they would be of course, because they are all cronies, privately educated and bitchy. How do we know that? Of course! Baroness Warsi; a Tory of quite a different stripe who has resigned over the Government’s tardiness in calling Israel to book over Gaza. Now anther junior foreign office minister has gone even as I write this. Dear me! Time for a reshuffle perhaps? Oh, no, they have just had one.

Suddenly Ed Milliband is beginning to look like a safe pair of hands.

This Blog has been unrelenting in its criticism of Western foreign policy since 9/11; in particular we condemn the tribal nature of traditional likes, which has lead to an increasing gulf between the UK and US and Russia. The problems with Russia over Ukraine could be easily foreseen and could equally easily have been resolved, so that all elements in that divided and badly governed country would have been faced with a united position from both West and East. Instead both Kiev and Donetsk have played one off against the other, while the population cringes amid the upheaval and violence of civil war.

Now we are witnessing the potential collapse of the Iraq state, under the weight of its own sectarian hatreds and the onslaught of the genocidal and ruthlessly efficient, as well as well equipped and resourced, IS. We have seen from the humanitarian disaster which is Syria that the West’s early judgement that Assad was a gonner has proved wholly wrong. What is overlooked in embarrassment is that Russia warned this would be the outcome. Russia and China warned over Libya and abstained. Now we can see with good reason.

Even the State Department and Foreign Office can now see that among the countries most vigorously opposed to the rise of ISIS and who have deployed covert and overt military assets to help stem the tide, are Iran and Russia. Meanwhile the US and UK are also deploying military assets in the same cause; the US is actually engaged in air strikes against IS, as well as aid  drops for the terrorised Yazidis. The UK is dropping aid of its own as well as supporting the US with refuelling and logistics. It would all work so much better if everyone was working together for the same objective. This is what foreign policy is supposed to be about. Put simply diplomacy only works if it is built on facts not fancies.

To promote the launch of the new compact edition, with a striking new cover, of Hitler’s First Lady in denser type and therefore 100 pages shorter, the paperback will be on  offer  for a short period at the special price of £5.99, or currency equivalent, worldwide from Amazon.  The new Kindle  of this edition will be on sale at £0.77p.  Get it now!

Customer Review   ” I really enjoyed this book – fascinating plot that had me gripped. At centre of the story is an Anglo-German family whose loyalties are torn during the second world war. The woman has an affair with Hitler – seems rather far-fetched but the book draws you in and I couldn’t put it down!”

Historical drama spanning more than one hundred years, from its origins at the beginning of the twentieth century to continuing repercussions into the twenty-first. Here is an extract:

Hitler, who had been lounging, rumpled, in his chair, sat up and pulled his tunic straight. The Nazi brown had been replaced by field grey.

‘How do you plan to do that?’

‘Contacts are beginning to develop in Lisbon and Madrid with representatives of those in the British Establishment who oppose the continuance of the war. They need time to prepare but I think before we move on Russia, a deal will be possible.’

Hitler smiled.

‘Rudolf, you are a subtle player of the kind the British, who love intrigue, respond to. Go ahead, but take care and not a word to anyone! This is for you and me only.’

AMAZON.UK                                                          AMAZON.COM