Back to the question of intervention in Syria

We have been here before, only last time the question was about intervening in order to overthrow Assad. This time the discussion is about intervening against ISIL from which Assad may benefit. The debate is set for tomorrow and it would be a foolhardy person who could predict its outcome. To me these debates show the futility of running a foreign policy according to popular opinion, which tends to change in response to media stories and pictures, something I discussed on the blog not so long ago.

Back at the time of people demanding that we go in to unseat Assad, who has remained considerably more tenacious in his grasp on some power than people predicted and who is still responsible for more deaths than ISIL (though that is probably merely because he has been there for much longer), I wrote this:

However, ladies and gentlemen who demand that we intervene in Syria, could you answer at least some of the following questions?

When you say you want us to intervene what kind of intervention do you have in mind and who, do you think, should carry it out? What precisely is a limited military intervention, as suggested by Senator McCain?

What sort of timetable do you have in mind? Weeks? Months? Years? A long occupation with no foreseeable end and if so, who would be doing it?

What would be the agreed aim of the intervention? Simply no more pictures of dead bodies? How can we ensure that? Regime change? I have no problems with that in principle (think Germany, Japan and Italy in 1945) but what sort of regime should we install and how long will it survive?

Do we have any identifiable allies?

And last but very much not least: what is the exit strategy?

With a few changes those questions are still relevant. Obviously, if we are talking only about extended bombing (people seem not to have noticed that we are already involved in it to some extent) then the urgency of those questions is not so great. Even bombing, as was carried out in Libya, now a completely dysfunctional state, carries with it certain consequences. What if we actually put boots on the ground in a civil war, which has many sides, all of them nasty and few potential allies?

More to German history than Hitler

Or so say the moderately eurosceptic Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. It has been my contention for a very long time that as soon as Germans seriously start appreciating that point (and many do already) the end of the EU will be nigh. It is kept together by constant references to those twelve terrible years from 1933 to 1945 and studious avoidance of everything that happened before and after.

In a report in The Irish Times we read that AfD is trying broaden its policies beyond just being against the bail-out and talking about foreign policy, harking back to that undoubted genius, Count Otto von Bismarck.

“After the experiences of the Hitler years we Germans have a tendency to view the definition and pursuit of national interests as per se a bad thing,” said Mr Alexander Gauland, a founding AfD member, in Berlin.

“This view is shared neither by our friends and neighbours nor our co-players on the world stage.”

Mr Gauland said it was time for Germany to look further than Hitler into its past for a reappraisal of the European politics of Otto von Bismarck, the Iron chancellor who united Germany.

In particular he said Germans should show greater understanding for Russia, given Russia’s support for German interests over the centuries. Neither Germany nor Europe had an interest in a further weakening of “Russia and, with it, the entire Euro-Asian space”. “We Germans sometimes forget that Russia stood by Germany at important points in its history and defended Prussia from collapse,” he said, praising Russian support during the foundation of the German Reich in 1871 and German unification in 1990.

Actually, he is wrong about Russian support for German reunification in 1990 but moderately correct about the rest. However, what we should all be looking at is the natural Anglo-German alliance, which has a long history as well, going back beyond the German Reich.

A few additional points ...

... and then I turn my attention to some other work. One or two of these points I have made before but they seem to bear repetition:

1.      President Assad is not like Hitler, though he is a very nasty bloodthirsty dictator. For one thing, he has not invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia or Poland. It is not rational to compare every international crisis with 1938 - 39. They are different and we have to think about them differently. (NB. Let us not forget that highly respectable historians think that Britain made a mistake in declaring war on September 3, 1939 but that is another story.)

2.      Following on from that: Syria is not in the Balkans and the situation there is not the same as it was in former Yugoslavia throughout the nineties. Therefore, any comparison in required action is invalid. Or, in other words, everything is not just like everything else in international affairs and each situation has to be judged separately. 

3.     The argument of "no meddling" is meaningless in that it also says that every situation is just like every other. Sometimes we have to meddle and sometimes not. It is not the fact that this is meddling that is the problem, as I see it, but that we have no clear idea why we should do so, on whose side we want to meddle and what we hope to achieve as well as what our meddling should consist of. If those who want us to go in could answer those questions in a satisfactory fashion instead of wringing their hands and crying that we cannot just do nothing, then meddling might become an acceptable option to many more people. Certainly, it would to me, for whatever that might be worth [very little] as I do not oppose necessary intervention in principle.

4.     Those who are calling for another vote "to erase the shame" are clearly not people who approve of parliamentary democracy and consider that the EU's way of running political affairs - make them vote over and over again until we get the result we want - is far better. I hope none of those people will ever present themselves as eurosceptics again.

5.     Britain's position in the world does not depend on us rushing into every war and civil war that happens to have better photographers though, as we know, not all of those photographs are completely kosher, if I may use that word. It did not, for instance, benefit in the end from us going into Iraq as we were thrown out of there ignominiously and Basra had to be taken back by the Iraqi army with American support. [See numerous postings by the Boss over on EURef.]

6.      It would be good to think that as a result of this fiasco we are going to start that long-delayed discussion and debate as to what our national interests are, what our position in the world should be and what our foreign policy is going to be. I have no great hopes of that happening.

Too much emotion

There are times when emotion is appropriate. I am certain that I shall feel very emotional when I attend Professor Minogue's Memorial Service towards the end of September and so will everybody else there. In fact, I shall fill my bag and pockets with tissues just in case I tear up more than once. But that is what funerals and memorial services are for. Politics, on the other hand, ought to dispense with emotionalism as far as possible. Yet it was clear on Thursday,  in the wake of the Parliamentary debates about possible military intervention in Syria and the close vote [scroll down for Main Question] in the House of Commons against it that there is just too much emotion about the whole subject on both sides and for reasons I cannot quite understand. (Here is the full text of the debate in the House of Commons and here of the one in the House of Lords, where no vote was taken but the sense of the House was very clear.)

Almost immediately after the result was announced one started seeing and hearing weeping and gnashing of teeth among those who thought we should intervene though they were still unable to specify how and for what purpose we should do so and equally insane rejoicing among those who were against it, not to mention those who thought that this would signal the end of Cameron's leadership for reasons I fail to understand. I am, of course, glad that we are not going to be engaged in this open-ended, badly defined, ill-thought out military adventure but I see no particular reason for jumping up and down with joy. (A reminder of what I wrote about it a couple of days ago.)

A couple of days ago Brendan O'Neill put up a piece on Spiked in which he argued that

War used to be the pursuit of politics by other means. Today, if the statements made by the Western politicos and observers who want to bomb Syria are anything to go by, it’s the pursuit of therapy by other means. The most startling and unsettling thing about the clamour among some Westerners for a quick, violent punishment of the Assad regime is its nakedly narcissistic nature. Gone is realpolitik and geostrategy, gone is the PC gloss that was smeared over other recent disastrous Western interventions to make them seem substantial, from claims about spreading human rights to declarations about facing down terrorism, and all we’re left with is the essence of modern-day Western interventionism: a desire to offset moral disarray at home by staging a fleeting, bombastic moral showdown with ‘evil’ in a far-off field.

I could not help agreeing with him and thought of the article again as I waded through the acres of sticky emotionalism last night and today or tried to engage in some rational discussion. The reasons as to why the MPs betrayed us all, betrayed the people of Syria and of every other country you could name and created a world-wide desolation were various but all displayed a "nakedly narcissistic nature". All arguments about the nature of the rebels, the lack of British interest, the lack of clear understanding as to what is going on or what we might achieve were swept aside in a general cry of "Assad is such a terrible man" or, in one case (I kid you not) "MPs can now watch the Syrian children suffer". (I did say rather coolly that if it was about the children we should go in against both sides since there is good evidence of children being maltreated by the rebels. There was no response.)

The whole discussion reminds me of the endless arguments about foreign aid in which all rational objections of any kind are brushed aside with an highly emotional and at the same time self-centred cry of "but we cannot just sit back". It is all about us not about them.

So where are we now? First of all, that vote was not, in my opinion, catastrophic for David Cameron. Intervention in Syria is not core government policy and there is no particular reason why a government should not be defeated from time to time. It used to happen in the past and can happen again. In fact, it has just happened. The defeat was not exactly surprising (and neither were the arguments expressed in the House of Lords). It does not take a great deal of political nous to realize that the proposed military adventure is highly unpopular in the country and the arguments for it have not been presented at all cogently.

Then again, wars are never popular but until recently, declaration of them had not needed parliamentary approval (and Blair had it in full over Iraq) because it is issued, as this article explains, under a Royal Prerogative that is now effectively vested in the government of the day. David Cameron did not have to go to Parliament over the Syrian adventure but he could not really avoid it for political reasons. He can now, with some justification, proclaim himself to be a true parliamentarian who does not act in a high-handed fashion but listens to the people and to Parliament. Indeed, he has already done so and the chances are he will play on it in future.

The Opposition could now call for a vote of no confidence but I doubt if they will as they might win, in which case there will be an election, which they have not a chance of winning at the moment. Actually, the government would win that vote. Governments usually do.

The Lib-Dims came out rather poorly. Having consistently opposed the war in Iraq they (like a number of leftie luvvies in this country and in the US) have suddenly become bellicose and anxious to see a nasty tyrant punished though, presumably, not toppled. Nick Clegg is now of even less importance than he has been until now.

The other losers are UKIP and, for once, it is not their fault. Nigel Farage has made it clear that their policy was strong and absolute opposition to any intervention in Syria. A number of UKIPers then produced the usual statist, socialist mantra about the money spent on any foreign adventure and how it is needed to build more hospitals, schools and so on. Even the Labour Party stopped saying that.

A number of analysts (not all of them UKIP members) said before the debate that if the Commons vote for military action, UKIP's popularity would go up. That would not necessarily be true as the Lib-Dims had not benefited from their opposition to the Iraq war even when that became unpopular. As it happens, the vote went against military intervention and UKIP is once again on the sidelines, calling for a confidence vote, resignations and assuring anyone who will listen that they were the ones who achieved this result.

While Mr Cameron is reported to be contemplating a few enforced resignations in his Cabinet and a general reshuffle, we are getting an emotional chorus of people in and around politics, led by the Lord Ashdown, about Britain's diminished role in the world and the death of the special relationship with the United States. All absolute piffle. If Britain has any sort of a role to play in international politics it is not likely to be enhanced by a Pavlovian need to get embroiled in any war and civil war that happens to have good photographers around.

At the height of Britain's power and influence it managed to keep out of numerous wars and even more civil wars, not considering it necessary to become embroiled unless there was some interest in doing so. The man who is generally thought of being the strongest imperialist among political leaders and one who always had his eye on promoting Britain's role and interests, Benjamin Disraeli, the Earl of Beaconsfield, can be said to have had his finest hour when he refused to involve the country  in a Balkan war but negotiated a peace to its advantage. When Bismarck was congratulated on achieving agreement after days of difficult negotiations in 1878 in Berlin, he insisted that the achievement was Disraeli's, famously and admiringly saying: "Der alte Jude, das ist der Mann."

In fact, all those rather over-wrought individuals who are comparing Assad with Hitler and saying that we should go to war as we did in 1939 as well as those who displaying fears that this might another 1914, should study the events of 1876 to 1878 when, in the wake of atrocious behaviour by the Turks in response to an uprising in the Balkans Mr Gladstone, the Leader of the Opposition, published his highly influential Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East. Even then there were pictures and reports from some parts of the world and many people became angry.

However, the situation was different. For one thing, those massacred were Christians and Gladstone, himself a devout man, could appeal to feelings of solidarity for co-religionists. If there is any of that around in the discussions about Syria, they cannot be on the side that is calling for the punishment of Assad as it is the far more Islamist rebels who seem to have attacked, murdered and generally abused the Syrian Christians.

Secondly, Gladstone could point to the British government as being partially at fault. Disraeli was determined to retain the alliance with the Ottoman Empire against the Russians and Gladstone, whose campaign was considerably more popular than any calls for intervention in Syria are now, called for a change in policy. He did not call for direct military intervention (which Russia was supplying in any case) but for a change in foreign policy. Even in 1876, at the height of Britain's strength and power, it was not considered to be necessary to become militarily involved in every war going, not even for a good cause. In the end, as we have seen, Disraeli won and the Treaty of Berlin stabilized the region but did not precisely punish any wrongdoers.

In the meantime, President Obama, unlike his much maligned predecessor seems unable to build a coalition of the willing and may decide to go it alone, largely because he, foolishly in most people's opinion, drew those lines in the sand or red lines or whatever lines and can now either bomb Syria with no-one to back him or climb down on his threats. Neither is a good option for him or for the United States.

To be fair, it looks like France is ready to support any action and even become involved in it though not for the purpose of overthrowing Assad, merely to punish him (and to ensure that some Raffaele Rafale planes are bought by somebody in the regions).

Secretary of State John Kerry, who, in the not too distant past voted for the Iraqi war before he voted against it, made a speech in which he called France America's oldest ally, which is technically correct, as France helped the winning side in the War of Independence. Not sure it means anything really as the special relationship whose death is once again proclaimed by all and sundry is a somewhat more complicated affair and exists on many more levels than politicians can grasp. If it survived Harold Wilson's government, it will survive President Obama's posturing.

John Kerry's speech (analyzed here and published in full here) appears to be using language and arguments that are very familiar. I was not the only one who was transported back to 2003 when similar arguments were given by President Bush and Secretary of State Powell for an attack on Iraq (which I still think was the right thing to do but that is for another time) and which was later furiously attacked by Democrats and their left-wing supporters, some of whom are now finding time to attack Parliament for that vote. Well, if you lost Mia Farrow, you have really lost your position in the world. Or so she thinks, I have no doubt.

Could John Kerry suddenly be against the military adventure (it is hard to know what to call it after all the chopping and changing) after he is for it?

Tomorrow will bring new developments, I've no doubt. At least, I hope so as I am due to discuss them on the BBC Russian Service in the afternoon. But as things stand, President Obama has not built his coalition of the willing and has found himself in a pickle as a result of his more than confused policy in the Middle East. Britain is not going to be bombing Syria and that is not a bad thing as open-ended, ill-defined military adventures whose purpose is unclear and which are likely to help someone equally nasty are a bad idea. This does not mean that Britain's position in the world will change or that the special relationship with the US is over. Maybe it will mean that there will be an effort to define what that position might be but I do not have high hopes of that. However, the rather emotional rejoicing about the vote is equally insane. The situation in Syria and the Middle East is not such as to bring joy to anyone. In fact, it has become considerably worse than it was in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected and promised to sort out all the nasty problems that his predecessor had allegedly created. And the moral of that story is that no politician should ever believe the hype produced by the media.

Is this why we are in Mali?

I spent a good part of yesterday at a conference on what can be done about Iran and, as ever, some of the more interesting discussions happened during lunch or coffee breaks. A conversation with a leading analyst of the international scene turned to Mali and our ridiculous involvement. He summed the situation up rather well:

"It seems that the policy is to become involved in a third country only if we have absolutely no economic or defence interest in doing so. Anything else appears dirty to this government."

This, I presume, is what they mean by ethical foreign policy: never look to your own interests. Of course, first we might have to sort out what those interests are and that would involve strategic thinking and some notion of what our foreign policy is or ought to be.

France, one may add, does not share that attitude, no matter how much they harrump about American imperialism. Any French government over the years would consider that former French colonies (even if they were that for a short period only) remain in the French sphere of interest and, therefore, French bombs (well, American bombs all too often) can fall on them and French troops of various description can invade them. It might be for reasons of human rights or to salvage priceless manuscripts in Timbuktu or it may be simply because the situation is messy enough for people to ignore French involvement as is the case in Côte d’Ivoire.

I suspect a lack of thought

We have troops and many of them would prefer to be fighting to sitting at home. That is probably correct, though we have ever fewer troops in existence and shall have fewer still in a few months. So, in principle, one might not be opposed to some of them being deployed in Mali, as Downing Street has confirmed they will be.

Amid concerns on the Tory benches that Britain is being drawn into a conflict without an exit strategy, the government said that 200 UK troops would train an African regional force outside Mali, with up to 40 more on an EU training mission inside the country. A further 70 RAF personnel will oversee the use of a Sentinel surveillance, to be based in Senegal with 70 supporting crew and technical staff, and 20 will staff a C-17 transport plane for a further three months.

Britain has offered a roll-on, roll-off ferry to help transport French armour to Mali by sea, landing on the African coast. Britain is also offering air-to-air refuelling capacity to operate outside the UK, but based in Britain. It is possible the US will provide air-to-air refuelling.

But, while leaving the detailed discussion to the Boss, I cannot help sharing the Tory benches' concern (assuming benches do have concerns). Exactly what are we going to achieve (not that I would not like to see Timbuctoo or what is left of it saved from the various militias) and to whom are we going to hand power? Or, alternatively, whom are we supporting and will they, in turn, be on our side? Also, what is our eventual exit strategy?

A good many people in the United States must be asking themselves the same question as news comes through that President Obama, laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize, is stepping up American military presence in West Africa.

What is most bothersome is the apparent ad hoc way of making important decisions about defence, which means, in effect that it is the other side, in this case, Islamist militias who decide how and when we become involved. Is it not time to have some kind of a discussion as to what our foreign policy is and then think what kind of defence policy we need to further it?

The answer

How silly of me not to think of Mr Google when I posed my question, encouraging readers to guess when a particular comment was made and in connection with whom. Those who guessed before or instead of discussing the matter with Mr G. came up with interesting replies (though I am still trying to work out what this comment means: "1946, Hitler/Nazi Germany, presumably talking about Churchill?". That got me well and truly confused.

However, it is clear that unless one happens to know or confers with Mr G. it becomes very hard to work out as the parliamentary comment could have been made about HMG and, especially, about the Foreign Office (now Foreign and Commonwealth Office) at any time in the last 200 or 250 years, perhaps more, which ought to be something we should all consider with due seriousness. In other words, it is not the people who are there now who are the problem but the whole institution in general.

And the answer? It was Lord Charles Beresford MP, speaking in 1902 in a debate on the following motion [scroll down for Lord Charles's fascinating contribution]:

That a sum, not exceeding £35,150, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Now that I think of it, there has been an important change: Parliament no longer debates individual departments' budgets and, therefore, has no opportunity to criticize or analyze their performance. That, I can't help feeling, is a great shame.

Try to guess ...

... when this was said and about whom. A hint: it was spoken by an MP in the House of Commons during a debate on foreign policy. Guess the date and who X might be. Answers in a later posting.

They all wanted a better understanding with X, but how was it to be brought about? X's policy was based on the giving of assurances, and there was no case in the history of X with regard to assurances where they had not been broken when X was in a position to do so. He did not blame X; X's Ministers were very clever. But he blamed our FO for listening to their assurances, always knowing that they would be broken.

Approximate date and identity of X, please.

A complete muddle

Charles Krauthammer is one of the most intelligent American commentators. This piece on the Libyan imbroglio details the mess from the American point of view. It all looked so good on paper, you see

And as for the United States, who knows what American policy is. Administration officials insist we are not trying to bring down Gaddafi, even as the president insists that he must go. Although on Tuesday Obama did add “unless he changes his approach.” Approach, mind you.

In any case, for Obama, military objectives take a back seat to diplomatic appearances. The president is obsessed with pretending that we are not running the operation — a dismaying expression of Obama’s view that his country is so tainted by its various sins that it lacks the moral legitimacy to . . . what? Save Third World people from massacre?

Obama seems equally obsessed with handing off the lead role. Hand off to whom? NATO? Quarreling amid Turkish resistance (see above), NATO still can’t agree on taking over command of the airstrike campaign, which is what has kept the Libyan rebels alive.

This confusion is purely the result of Obama’s decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely “one of the partners among many,” he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not.

A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you’re not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.

And what of our own Boy-King and the embarrassments we have for Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary?

When one's opponents have no arguments

There are two major political discussions going on at the moment (now that we have all accepted that the world is not going to die of a Japanese nuclear "melt-down"): one rather parochial about that wretched EU referendum campaign or two, the other rather wider about our involvement in Libya. Interestingly, I am not getting good arguments on either of those issues from any of my opponents who become mildly personally abusive very quickly. Only mildly, though. I suspect it is because they (the various opponents) are not too sure about their stance. How different from the beginning of the Iraqi war when the war in Afghanistan was still the "good war" - the abuse then was virulent though the arguments just as lame. Basically, people were against the war in Iraq because they hated the idea of an American-led coalition while Bush was president. Everything in those circumstances was evil as far as they were concerned and even Saddam Hussein acquired the patina of a martyr. That alone convinced me that there were no good arguments against that war though there were many good arguments against the way the occupation of Iraq, particularly by the British, was conducted.

Let's get the referendum out of the way because that is a thoroughly boring subject and is unlikely to bother us for much longer. We are still at a stage when journalists suddenly announce that the campaign for a referendum is the best thing since sliced bread, that nothing like this has ever been thought of and that all those who are unhappy with aspects of the EU and Britain's membership of it are going to support it. After all, what kind of a eurosceptic would not support an in/out referendum on Britain in the EU? (To be fair, Kavanagh's article is not about the referendum campaign and is mentioned only in passing.)

The answer is, of course, any eurosceptic who refuses to go along with the latest slogan, does not think that the support of such luminaries as Caroline Lucas, Keith Vaz and Bob Crowe is an inducement and does not believe that the in/out referendum will be won by us as we are wasting time, money and resources on stupid campaigns. None of these problems are dealt with, mild personal insults are strewn around and the best argument we get is public opinion is bound to move our way. Brilliant strategy. Marlborough, Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Wellington and numerous World War II generals would be envious.

As to Libya, my opinion that this is not in Britain's interests but is, on the contrary, a poorly thought out emotional response, manipulated by President Sarkozy and Secretary of State Clinton for their own political purposes, is hardening. It is hardening because the supporters of this intervention can produce no arguments except Boys' Own slogans and mild, very mild, personal abuse. There are ridiculous references to the thirties from people who have no clear understanding what was happening then, let alone of the fact that the parallels are not altogether real. I have even been accused of "blimpism" though, I suspect, that was a joke. Or near it.

The reason for the accusation was my refusal to acknowledge that Libya presented a particular security risk to Britain or, even, the EU. I noted that the country that was most at risk, Italy, was merely cheering from the sidelines. If the French, I added, want to indulge in political adventurism, let them do so. What has it to do with Britain or the United States. Answer? Blimpism. I suggested another viewing of the great Powell and Pressburger film.

It is interesting to note that support for this war by any other name is patchy to put it mildly on both sides of the Pond and many of the problems stem from the ill-defined aims. The New York Times is mostly against it though, obviously as this is not Bush's war, they are ambivalent.

Pentagon officials are eager to extract the United States from a third armed conflict in a Muslim country as quickly as possible. But confusion broke out on Monday among the allies in Europe over who exactly would carry the military operation forward once the United States stepped back, and from where.

In Washington, lawmakers from both parties argued that Mr. Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the military’s participation without Congressional approval. The president said in a letter to Congress that he had the power to authorize the strikes, which would be limited in duration and scope, and that preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya was in the national interest.

The countries that abstained on that UN vote are now openly speaking up against the military operation, which was bound to go beyond whatever anybody thought were the limits. That would not matter if we did not have a President in the United States and a Prime Minister in Britain who believe in the efficacy of transnational rule.

The Arab League's support, much touted before the operation started is, unsurprisingly, doubtful.

None of this is surprising any more than the fact that "Europe" does not speak with one voice is surprising. How could it? On the other hand, if the Americans are looking to hand over the operation to some other participants as soon as possible, the difficulties could become enormous.

However, there are somewhat more surprising opponents of this operation and they are not simply against it because it is led by President Obama or, possibly, Secretary of State Clinton who appears to be gambling her political future on Libya.

George Friedman on Stratfor thinks that this coalition's intentions are unclear and there are too many political complications in Libya and the whole area for a rather simplistic venture to be successful.

Victor Davis Hanson argues from an impeccably conservative (he has even been called a neo-conservative by those obsessed with that group and completely ignorant of it) point of view.

What are we left with? A mission that is part Black Hawk Down, part the twelve-year no-fly zone in Iraq, part working with insurgents as in the 2002 removal of the Taliban, and part Bill Clinton’s various air campaigns over the Balkans. So far, no one has agreed on any objective other than that Qaddafi should not be killing his opponents.

Is he to be gone? If so, how soon and replaced by whom or what? The Libyan military? Westernized intellectuals and professionals? “Secular” Muslim Brotherhood types? Former jihadists whose experience was killing Americans in Iraq? Or is American success defined by rendering Qaddafi impotent and a rebel enclave safe, in the same way that for over a decade the Kurds carved out sanctuary from a closely monitored Saddam?

Most unexpectedly, Caroline Glick (together with other writers on Jewish World Review) is critical. In fact, her argument is similar to this blog's only about the United States, not Britain.

Traditionally, states have crafted their foreign policy to expand their wealth and bolster their national security. In this context, US foreign policy in the Middle East has traditionally been directed towards advancing three goals: Guaranteeing the free flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Middle East to global market; strengthening regimes and governments that are in a position to advance this core US goal at the expense of US enemies; and fighting against regional forces like the pan-Arabists and the jihadists that advance a political program inherently hostile to US power.

Other competing interests have periodically interfered with US Middle East policy. And these have to greater or lesser degrees impaired the US's ability to formulate and implement rational policies in the region.

These competing interests have included the desire to placate somewhat friendly Arab regimes that are stressed by or dominated by anti-US forces; a desire to foster good relations with Europe; and a desire to win the support of the US media.

Under the Obama administration, these competing interests have not merely influenced US policy in the Middle East. They have dominated it. Core American interests have been thrown to the wayside.

In other words, how are American interests advanced by this adventure? How are Western interests advanced? Has anyone thought about it beyond those, admittedly terrible, pictures on TV?

Mutatis mutandis we must ask the same questions here. I am ready to change my mind if I hear reasonable arguments on the other side.

Diplomad2.0 weighs in.

Something is missing

Don't get me wrong: I shall not be shedding any tears about Gaddafi when and if he is finally forced into a retirement home for overthrown dictators and kleptocrats, possibly on the Riviera. The man is as nasty a piece of works as ever dressed up in ludicrous costumes while organizing terrorist attacks and stealing vast amounts of money from his people. Undoubtedly, the war he has unleashed on his own people is horrendous. So yes, let's get rid of him. Except that there are many others who are the same and do the same: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe, to name but a few. So which ones are we going to discipline and on what basis?

What is missing from this whole issue is the concept we must not mention: national interest. Our national interest. Is it in this country's interest to go into Libya, suppose we might have to go in, which we all hope will not happen? What do we get out of it that we would not get out of enforcing a no-fly zone over Yemen? And if, as I was and am firmly convinced, it is in our interest to support our greatest ally, the United States (and would be in our interest to support other Anglospheric countries), is it really in our interest to support France who has, clearly reverted to her nineteenth century persona?

Possibly the answer to those questions would be yes and some explanation as to why Libya and French interests are of importance. But we need to discuss them as we ought to have discussed the national interest behind the invasion of Iraq instead of that ridiculous performance over the dossiers. Until we have some clarity about what our foreign policy is or ought to be and what Britain's role in the world is or ought to be no discussion of defence and security can take place.

Been hearing this a lot lately

The most unexpected people, such as Oxford academics are beginning to mutter that, perhaps, there is something to be said for George W. Bush in matters foreign, particularly as one looks at his successor's ineptitude. Indeed, people are saying that maybe, just maybe, it is President Bush's freedom for the Middle East agenda that is being played out now, however awkwardly, through much of the Arab world.

Charles Krauthammer's article in The Washington Post may not come into the category of the unexpected ones but is, as one would expect, cogently argued.

Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gaddafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the United States has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance and imperialism.

A strange moral inversion, considering that Hussein's evil was an order of magnitude beyond Gaddafi's. Gaddafi is a capricious killer; Hussein was systematic. Gaddafi was too unstable and crazy to begin to match the Baathist apparatus: a comprehensive national system of terror, torture and mass murder, gassing entire villages to create what author Kanan Makiya called a "Republic of Fear."

...

No matter the hypocritical double standard. Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush's freedom agenda, it's not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole. Also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed "realism" of Years One and Two of President Obama's foreign policy - the "smart power" antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism.

It began on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's first Asia trip, when she publicly played down human rights concerns in China. The administration also cut aid for democracy promotion in Egypt by 50 percent. And cut civil society funds - money for precisely the organizations we now need to help Egyptian democracy - by 70 percent.

This new realism reached its apogee with Obama's reticence and tardiness in saying anything in support of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran. On the contrary, Obama made clear that nuclear negotiations with the discredited and murderous regime (talks that a child could see would go nowhere) took precedence over the democratic revolutionaries in the street - to the point where demonstrators in Tehran chanted, "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them."

Read the whole thing as it also provides the necessary links to the other articles.

I would, however, like to add one thing. Under President Obama the United States appears to have abandoned its role and there have been rather silly comments about power seeping away from it to .... well, nobody quite knows where. Europe is no longer the preferred successor, China and India have rather a lot of internal problems and the rest is nowhere. Yet, even with this inept politician at the helm (when he bothers to show up) there is no question in anybody's mind which is the only country that could, conceivably, make a difference in a tricky situation like the one in Libya.

What a good thing we no longer have that crass cowboy in the White House

It is a good thing, isn't it? Isn't it? I mean we have now a smart, sophisticated dude who really knows how to make America and Americans popular. Doesn't he? Well, apparently not.

Amid President Obama's vow to enact "smart diplomacy" and to raise U.S. stature overseas, it's never been more dangerous to be an American abroad. From Tehran to Havana, tyrants are taking U.S. hostages.

One after another, our nation's enemies are moving to make an example of Americans abroad. Ostensibly it's about the rule of law. But with trumped-up charges, these acts are provocations.

It may be because Obama's "smart diplomacy" amounts to shunning friends, appeasing tyrants, deferring to international law and imagining America as no more special than any other nation. Fact is, Americans are being singled out because rogue regimes are confident that they have nothing to fear from us any longer.

Go figure, as they say on the other side of the Pond.

And this will solve what?

The Daily Telegraph's Adrian Blomfield reports from Gaza City that various EU Member States, including Britain or rather the Foreign Office are mulling over the idea that the Palestinian "general delegations" be upgraded to "diplomatic missions". This will not make any difference, the FCO spokespersons assure us or, at least, Mr Blomfield.

But a Foreign Office spokesman said the upgrade did not "imply recognition of a Palestinian state," adding: "We continue to believe that the creation of a sovereign and viable Palestinian State alongside a secure Israel is best achieved through negotiations."

Yes, those peace talks have once again collapsed and the United States has refused to push for a UN resolution that would halt new settlements in the West Bank. Anyone would think that was the crux of the problem. We all know, what it is: the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. Solve that, and peace might become achievable.

Nevertheless, this idea does raise a few questions. In the first place, which Palestinian state and which diplomatic mission? Gaza is run by the thugs of Hamas and they do not acknowledge the supremacy of the thugs from Fatah. Fatah's thugs tend to crack down rather painfully on all supporters of the Hamas thugs. So, who represents the Palestinian state and how is it going to be set up and run?

Secondly, who is going to be paying for the enhanced status and thus, undoubtedly, enhanced expenses of the "diplomatic mission"? As a matter of fact, I think I know the answer to that.

Thirdly, symbolic gestures matter in politics. If this gesture is purely symbolic with no real content (and there can be very little content beyond some Palestinian delegates swaggering round the place with diplomatic immunity), why make it now when the peace talks have collapsed? In other words, why annoy Israel unnecessarily?

Fourthly, what about that diplomatic immunity? Will the Palestinian delegates, of whatever hue, acquire it?

What we need to talk about

As readers of this blog know I rarely, if at all, discuss details of defence, leaving all that to the Boss on EUReferendum who knows a great deal about it whereas to me toys are toys are toys. However, it so happens, that I spent yesterday evening with a number of people to whom defence matters a great deal and we, naturally, talked about the forthcoming SDSR (Strategic Defence Spending Review), which, it is rumoured, will be coming out in sections rather as one whole document.

We all agreed (as does the Boss of EURef) that you cannot have a defence review until you have a serious discussion on foreign policy. What exactly is Britain's foreign policy? Does it have one? Given that we now have a government that, apparently, "doesn't do foreign" and to whom a strategic alliance with China is a perfectly sensible idea because it's a large country in the East, whose economy is growing and, therefore, no different from India.

The real problem is one we all know and understand. Given that membership of the EU means further integration into the institutions of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) though such a policy in reality cannot exist as there are no common interests, a discussion about British foreign policy has to start with a discussion about the EU and Britain's membership in it. Forget about a referendum. We cannot have one until we have brought out into the open all the implications of our membership and non-membership. And up with that our politicians will not put. So, we might have to do it ourselves, spreading the word as best we can.

This is what matters

As I have said before I am profoundly uninterested in William Hague's sexual orientation or interests; I have also said on numerous occasions that Mr Hague is likely to be the most disastrous Foreign Secretary for some time if not ever. The fact that the man has no ability to think his way through a perfectly simple situation does not inspire confidence. The best way of putting it is to say that he made a series of egregious errors of judgement. Another way of putting is to say that he has shown himself to be an arrogant idiot. This does not inspire one with confidence and has not gone unnoted in other countries.

However, let us set the unfortunate saga of Chris Myers aside. The reason I think William Hague should be pilloried is summed up in this article that was published in Europe's World. Undoubtedly it was written by some bod in the Foreign Office but Mr Hague put his name to it and no SpAd of his pointed out the problems with it.

The article is about the "UK's Tory-led government's" EU policy.

The EU is an institution of enormous importance to the United Kingdom and to British foreign policy. And although the Conservative Party has seldom shied away from frank criticism when we have thought the EU has collectively been getting things wrong, we have equally been the foremost champions of the EU’s greatest achievements – the single market and enlargement.

Yet, as is widely recognised, this is no time for the EU to rest on its laurels. Today, its member states need to work together on the new issues we face in the 21st century; combating climate change, fighting global poverty and securing our energy supplies.

Our common economic future poses a fundamental challenge. Europe’s share of the world’s GDP is set to shrink and the world does not owe us a living. With the rise of new economic powers in many industries, Europe has already lost its cost advantage. If we also lose our knowledge advantage our future could be very bleak. Herman Van Rompuy has accurately said, ‘we need more economic growth, now and in the future’ and has rightly identified competitiveness as a key issue.

And so on, and so on. Read the whole thing and remember that this is not simply for show. This is their policy. Here is another taster:

The UK's new Conservative-led government intends to play a leading role in discussion of the European Union's external affairs. While we conservatives have taken a particular view on the utility and purpose of the EU's institutional structures, we have always argued that it is in the common interests of the nations of Europe that we should use our collective weight in the world to mutual advantage and to promote our shared values. We have consistently argued that EU member states have not shown enough determination and consistency in delivering on foreign policy goals. This Conservative-led government will be a strong advocate of the European Union’s collective demonstration of those qualities.

The European Union needs to show unity and purpose in its relations with Russia, where a balanced and constructive partnership would be desirable. And the EU should also prove that we Europeans have the political will to deliver the appropriate response to the Iranian Government’s stance on nuclear proliferation.

The EU's new External Action Service is going to have considerable bearing on the future success of Europe's global role. It is true that we in the Conservative Party were not persuaded of the case for the new EEAS as a service, but its existence is now a fact. Part of our critique of the Lisbon treaty was that rather than making the EU more streamlined and efficient, its new arrangement of the EU’s structures held the potential for inter-institutional confusion and discord. Nevertheless, we now look to the smoothest possible establishment of a service that must play a positive role for the EU and have the confidence of its member states. Britain's Conservative government will work closely with the High Representative, whom we wish well.

Compared to that, the story of Chris Myers is highly unimportant.

EU and UN

Those two organizations are two of a kind and need each other in their fight against democratic, genuinely liberal (I have to say this because of that tiresome American definition of liberal, which is really socialist), constitutional, fully accountable political structures. If the UN can be said to be the centre of the tranzi network, the EU is distinguished from others of that ilk by being the only one that has pretensions (many of which are now reality) to being a state.

Given Britain's rather feeble behaviour in the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the last couple of decades, I have never quite understood why we are so anxious to retain our position there. Why not just pull out completely together with our allies and let the countries that contribute next to no money, do not recognize or understand any of the supposed principles that underlie that organization but manage to bully all others into accepting their views run it.

So the notion that the EU's Foreign Affairs Supremo, Baroness Ashton will be allowed to address the UNGA leaves me cold. Nevertheless, it does excite some people and so I propose to do my public duty by telling everyone what HMG the Coalition thinks on the matter.

On Wednesday, July 14 there was a Written Ministerial Statement on the subject. Very interesting it is, too. Once we get past the obvious statement that the EU's structure has changed after the Lisbon Treaty (which is nothing like the Constitution, no, no, no) we find out the following.

A further element of the external representation question is the ability of the EU to participate in international organisations. In some cases, such as the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the EU has the status of an observer with limited rights of participation. This means that the EU is not able to represent the EU and the member states, where we have an agreed position, to the same extent as was possible for the rotating presidency, which, of course, was a full member of the UNGA.

Well, UNGA has not particular powers except for passing stupid resolutions that condemn Israel but nobody else ever. Still, the EU's Lady High Panjandrum may well think that she would like to be able to address it as a person of some importance, like President Ahmadinejad, for instance.

Following the entry into force of the treaty of Lisbon the role previously played by the rotating presidency in representing the EU externally has passed to the high representative and the EU delegations who act under her authority. So, in order for the EU to fill effectively the role previously played by the rotating presidency in the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Secretary has agreed that, together with our EU partners, we should table an UNGA resolution which, if approved by the wider UN membership, would grant the EU certain additional rights as an observer delegation. These rights are, as the proposal stands, the right to speak in a timely manner, the right of reply, the right to circulate documents, the right to make proposals and submit amendments, the right to raise points of order, and more seats for the high representative and her officials. As is currently the case, the EU will not have the right to vote, it will not be a full member of the UNGA, nor will it be seated among the UN member states.

The granting of such rights to the EU will not affect the UK's position as a member of the UNGA or the UN Security Council. Furthermore, this does not change the existing balance of competence between the EU and member states.

Well, that's fine and, in any case, I have already expressed my view of Britain's position as a member of the UNGA or the Security Council. But why exactly does the EU want these apparently meaningless rights? Hmmm?

A quick note about Hague's speech

Early yesterday afternoon I telephoned the Boss and read out to him the following paragraph with some words elided from the Daily Telegraph:

The Foreign Secretary said relations with the EU were crucial and had been neglected under the previous [government].

Th[is government] has worked constructively with its European partners, surprising those who had expected a strongly Eurosceptic stance, he added.

OK, I asked gleefully, who said that? The Boss thought for a moment and said tentatively: John Major. No, I said even more gleefully, it was William Hague this morning. The full quote was:

The Foreign Secretary said relations with the EU were crucial and had been neglected under the previous 13 years of Labour rule.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has worked constructively with its European partners, surprising those who had expected a strongly Eurosceptic stance, he added.

He then told us how he was going to make Britain's role in the EU a success:

"It is mystifying to us that the previous government failed to give due weight to the exercise of British influence in the EU," Hague said in the speech.

"They neglected to ensure that sufficient numbers of bright British officials entered EU institutions, and so we now face a generation gap developing in the British presence in parts of the EU," he said.

The number of British officials at director level in the EU Commission had fallen by a third since 2007 and Britain was sharply under-represented at junior official level, he said. "We are determined to put this right," he said.

That is it, ladies and gentlemen. We shall have more British eurocrats and all our problems will just simply roll away.

Can anyone tell me why I might be wrong when I maintain that this man is going to be the most disastrous Foreign Secretary for a long time?

Smart diplomacy

Apparently the Boy-King of the Conservative Party is unhappy about President Obama, hitherto the man he admired and sought to emulate, taking, well sort of, the Argentinian side in the latest uproar over the Falklands. Well diddums. I recall large swathes of the Conservative Party drooling over the election of this wonderfully charismatic new personality who was bringing hope and change to ... well, it is not quite clear to whom. In fact, the Conservatives have half-adopted the slogan but they talk only about change, not hope. But let us look at the bright side: at least the Boy-King has noticed that there is something going on in the South Atlantic. I must admit I was not absolutely sure.

On the other side of the Pond they look at these things differently. Thanks to Glenn Reynolds we get a link to an expert filleting by Walter Russell Mead of the Obama foreign policy.

The health care win has given the President his mojo back at home, but things overseas are still looking grim. We are neglecting or quarreling with our friends and reaching out to our enemies — but neither policy is yielding much in the way of results.

The latest case is Canada; on a visit to Ottawa to discuss Arctic policy with Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly criticized the Canadians for failing to invite all eight members of the Arctic Council to the consultation. Iceland, Finland and Sweden were miffed at being excluded. This was all very well and no doubt deserved; the next day, however, the Canadian Foreign Minister rejected Secretary Clinton’s pleas and announced that Canada will be ending its Afghan mission next year.

I don’t blame any American diplomat for seizing the opportunity to criticize Canada for its lack of sensitivity and inclusiveness; they do it to us all the time and I don’t see why the Canadians should have all the fun. Let’s criticize them for riding roughshod over the rights of small countries and native peoples now and then just to let them know how pointless and infuriating that kind of self-righteous and empty posturing can be. Even so, lecturing one day and begging in vain on the morrow isn’t the most dignified diplomatic posture an American secretary of state can assume. And the pattern of poor relations with close allies is disturbing. Currently embroiled in a quarrel with Israel over Jewish housing construction in East Jerusalem, the administration recently angered the EU by refusing to attend a summit in Madrid, embarrassed Britain by seeming to side with Argentina over negotiations over the Falklands Islands, canceled an invitation to Afghanistan’s President Karzai, and cheesed off Brazil when President Obama made his last minute, ill-fated dash to Copenhagen to snatch the 2016 Olympics from Rio. And where the administration hasn’t figured out a way to insult an old ally, Congress steps in — this time by passing another version of the Armenian genocide resolution through a key House committee.

Actually, I am not at all sure about that mojo back home. The popularity ratings say otherwise and the fact that the Democrats are spending their time shrilly and viciously attacking the Obamacare opponents instead of explaining what a wonderful development it is do not make one feel that the mojo is at all well. But when it comes to foreign relations Walter Russell Mead is spot on as even our own Boy-king of our own Conservative Party has noticed.

As Professor Reynolds says:

Where’s that “smart diplomacy” we were promised?

Indeed. As the rest of the Mead blog explains, Obama is ending up with many of Bush's old policies as far as Iran, China and Cuba are concerned. One day he might return to Bush's policies towards America's friends as well.

Strange developments

When, during the election campaign, Barack Obama said over and over again that his aim was to make the United States loved in the world again, exhibiting once again his extraordinary lack of historical and political knowledge, few people realized that he did not mean loved by friends and allies but by enemies and the worst dictators in the world. Not that they responded with love to his overtures but it is astonishing to see how consistently President Obama and his Administration have pushed aside friends and allied democracies in order to reach out to enemies, who also happen to be tyrannies.

Paul Greenberg writes in the Jewish World Review in an article mostly devoted to the customary Israel-bashing by the UN Human Rights Council, including “both China and Russia, those great exemplars of human rights” and “the Arab bloc, another bastion of human rights”:

These days even the United States, under our new administration, is adopting a softer, gentler tone toward the genocidal regime in Khartoum. For that matter, Washington is moving to "engage" Teheran and Moscow, too. And the military dictatorship in Burma to boot. Any regime that really violates human rights can hope to get a sympathetic hearing from this new crew at the State Department.

Sudan is singled out for mention because the chairman of the UN’s Arab bloc this month is the delegate from that country andis undoubtedly eminently well qualified to speak about human rights.

The article is mostly about the infamous Goldstone Report and repercussions thereof but, for the purposes of this posting, I picked out the reference to the new line in American foreign policy.

It is interesting that Mr Greenberg mentions the Burmese military junta because that is a very unfashionable tyranny. Political wonks and media sages who are happy to give China or Iran a pass, tend to be up in arms about Burma. Come to think of it, they used to be up in arms about Darfur. Whatever happened to that outrage?

So, if the new Administration is ready to defy fashionable opinion over Burma, it really is ready to extend the hand of friendship to all dictators.

Meanwhile, the word is that President Obama is going to give the twentieth anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall a miss. He presumably does not think a trip to Berlin now when he is no longer campaigning for the presidency to be of any importance. Besides, given his predilection for dealing with tyrants and dislike of spontaneous public movements, he may not like those pictures (if he has ever seen them) of people taking the Wall apart.

Michael Barone shows himself to be unimpressed:

PRESIDENT Obama, who found time to go on a 24-hour jaunt to Copenha gen on Oct. 2 to seek the 2016 Olympic Games for Chicago, apparently can't find the time for a 24-hour trip to Berlin on Nov. 9 for a celebration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Well, we all have our priorities, and the president can't be everywhere at once, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will surely represent America ably in Berlin.

Mind you, says Mr Barone, when one remembers what the then Senator Obama said in his speech in the Tiergarten about fighting for freedom, defeating the Taleban and Al-Qaeda, standing together against the various threats and compares it with his dithering over Afghanistan and frequently shown preference for enemies of freedom, it might be a good idea for him not to go. Madame Secretary of State, who will be brought out of the closet and dusted off for the occasion, will manage.

Read Barone’s article. Well worth it.