Archive for April, 2017

Boris Johnson Humiliated : Gove Was Right?

Tuesday, April 11th, 2017

First he cancels his trip to Moscow. All commentators who know Putin, Medvedev and Lavrov thought this a mistake. He should have gone there, tested possibilities and reported back. No, not Boris the showman. Grandstanding, one liners and soundbites flowed like a river in flood. Then came a plan this Blog saw no prospect of working, involving backing the Russians into a corner and demanding they do as the West tells them. It could not work,  was pointless and the other European foreign ministers vetoed it.

So now Tillerson is off to Moscow. Boris has egg on his face. The UK has been sidelined by Europe. The hard  truth is that both Washington and Moscow regard him as a clown with zero grasp of diplomacy. They are right. May must rid herself of this court jester whom she cannot any longer afford. Neither can the country. At least we understand why Gove knifed him in the back.

What a fiasco.

US Foreign Policy: A Seismic Shift

Sunday, April 9th, 2017

This is important and to make it easier for younger adults who do not recall the detail of the Cold War or Pre 9/11 policy, I am going to state the facts, rather than argue the case.

9/11 unhinged America’s judgement and gave life to a misguided theory of democratization through regime change, brought about by armed intervention. This proved calamitous and led to an era of endless fighting, human suffering unknown in modern times and a reduction in Anglo-American influence to its lowest  level post WWII. Trump was elected on a non-interventionist ticket. But he also said, repeatedly, that he was going to keep America safe, expand the military and make America great again. People listened to that and cheered, but they did not hear.

Suddenly comes the chemical attack. This produces an opportunity as well as a provocation. Obama would have dithered and dawdled. Huffed and puffed. Trump ordered an immediate strike. Carefully crafted to send and immensely powerful message, without doing much actual damage, the Russians warned in advance. What next? A nuclear armed and powered naval battle group is sailing to the Korean Peninsular capable of wiping North Korea from the map within an hour. The days of wild threats from Pyongyang are over. In Moscow and Beijing  lights burn 24/7. China and Russia know that they have new and important roles to play, but the era of doing as they like is over. There will be no attempt to run other countries or effect futile regime change. Nor will there be nation building.  But nothing is going to happen to America, its allies or its interests unless Trump says yes. And if he says no and it happens, he will use force at once.

Is this all unexpected? Certainly but the clues were there. All the key posts to do with foreign policy, defense and national security in the Trump administration are held by retired or serving generals. Except for one. The State Department. Here there is a CEO from a multi-national, with a reduced departmental budget and a skeleton personal staff. His job is not to negotiate a deal, but to state the terms. These will only be varied if the attraction of the counter offer is compelling. That is business. But the driver is raw power.

So there we are. It is not the first time people voted for one thing and got another. It happened in GB not all that long ago. Voters elected a housewife and got Thatcher. In America they voted for a wild card and got Trump. Now they learn that you do not snatch the Presidency from the political establishment or make a multi billion dollar fortune just by pinching bottoms and fooling on Twitter. It is obvious when you think about it. But nobody did.

 

Trump Strikes: What Now?

Saturday, April 8th, 2017

It goes without saying that this Blog, like the whole world, was shocked and repelled by the  images of the aftermath of the infamous gas attack on innocent civilians in Syria. It is impossible to understand the motive for this attack by the Assad regime. Militarily it will have little impact because although horrible, it was limited to a single strike. But it is a colossal strategic reverse for Assad and a huge annoyance to his allies and backers, Russia and Iran, who are fuming behind the scenes at having to publicly defend the indefensible. Even the Nazis did not use chemical weapons in conflict. Before the attack the Americans were saying Assad could stay and be part of a peace settlement. After it they say he has to go before there can be one. Before Assad had the political advantage. Now he has lost it.

So it is difficult to fathom what Assad thought he was going to gain and why this Blog would like to see a bit more evidence from the US which makes them certain he did this. I hope and imagine that this involves surveillance, hacking, tacking, drones, satellites and listening processes which are incontrovertible. All of those technologies are light years beyond where they were in 2002. But if today the US has relied on human intelligence which, like the infamous weapons of mass destruction debacle, is flawed or deliberately falsified to set the US on the wrong path, things for America and Trump could yet go very badly wrong.

But assuming that grim scenario is not the case, this bold move by Trump, measured, specific and limited, has, at no cost to American lives and in defence terms very little money, established his Presidency as real and not a reality show, re-asserted America’s world leadership roll, and sent clear messages to Moscow. These are that the attack was not aimed at Russia, evidenced by the fact that she was warned of the strike and specific efforts were made to avoid areas where Russian military were present. But America is now engaged in Syria and Assad cannot now win. Russia, which has more or less had a free hand in Syria since it first intervened has lost control. In future the US will have to be part of the calculation. Moreover there is now no military solution possible short of the obliteration of Syria and a political solution will have to be found.

The format of that will have a different character too. Instead of trying for a brokered agreement among warring factions which cannot agree anything even among themselves, it will be a deal between America, Russia, Iran and Turkey. It will involve a carve up and enforcement process both complex and robust in which Assad will be lucky if he ends up alive and washing the dishes. The driver will be that Moscow fears that a clash between US and Russian forces in the skies over Syria is now very real and that Washington is okay with that. Tillerson’s visit to Moscow will be more productive than people expect.

For Trump, the icing on the cake is an invitation of a state visit to China, following the overshadowed hosting of Xi Jinping, which he has accepted. A bye product is that his visit to the UK is now definitely on, including I expect, his address to Parliament. With just one caveat overall. This President is uniquely unpredictable and spontaneous. By mid-week everything may have gone pear shaped. He certainly gives us a white knuckle ride in his presidential theme park.

Brexit: Now It Gets Real

Monday, April 3rd, 2017

Since the fateful referendum in June last year things have been easy for the Brexiteers. Because of the delay in triggering Article 50, nothing had actually changed, so nothing did change. All the consequences remained in the future. But now things are happening thick and fast and even though negotiations have not yet begun, it is clear that the era of lofty rhetoric about a new global Britain, without facts, figures, plans or projections, is over. Now it is the hard grind through much detail and a good deal of vested interests and nobody knows how it will work out in the end.

The foundation upon which May has built her project, somewhat bravely pressing forward without any useful input (apart from rhetoric) from the authors of this peculiar twist in the history of these islands, is that she is acting to carry out the will of the British people. So what ‘will’ is that? Here are the figures. Of those entitled to vote

31% did not bother, thus signalling that they either did not care, did not understand, or were kind of okay with things as they are;

35% voted to remain;

37% voted to leave.

So only 37% actually voted for this Brexit? On matters of this magnitude  that is a minority voting preference. It does not pass a two thirds threshold which should have been part of the referendum structure for so huge a leap into the unknown. It is certainly not a mandate and as things begin to get difficult, that will become ever clearer.