What François did next

There is not much one can say about les événements on Friday in Paris that is not being said by many people in various forms. Immediately after President Hollande had spoken about an attack on the French state I wondered out loudly (i.e. on the much derided social media) whether he was now going to invoke NATO Article 5, which would be somewhat ironic, given France's historic ambivalence about that organization. To date he has not done so. Instead he has called for a meeting of the UN Security Council and has vowed to step up French attacks on ISIL. He has also proposed to extend the state of emergency for another three months and introduce some very sweeping reforms into the French Constitution. At present the only concrete proposal he has made is to have the right not to allow back "French citizens who also hold citizenship in another country ... if it's believed they are connected to terrorism", in itself not a very radical idea. What of French citizens who do not hold another citizenship but have gone to fight with ISIS?

I saw some discussion of whether France will invoke Article 5, mostly on the part of Americans who were wondering what President Obama's response will be if that happens, given his less than stellar performance at various press conferences since Friday. There is also a discussion of the alternatives in the Jerusalem Post. My own opinion is that, given France's ambivalent attitude to NATO throughout its history, Article 5 will not be invoked.

I wrote that yesterday but thought I'd not post till today though I did spend some time on other sites arguing just that - France will not invoke Article 5 as they will not want to have NATO fighting the battle.

Today it is clear: President Hollande is trying to use the EU though most probably he will require American fire power at some stage. But not through NATO. Oh no. That is not at all what France wants to see.

EurActiv tells us that France 'at war' inaugurates EU mutual defence clause, the one whose purpose it was to supplant NATO in defence matters. After all, who wants to be told endlessly that it was not the EU that kept peace in Western Europe all these decades but NATO, US troops and the nuclear umbrella?

President François Hollande said he will invoke the European Union's ‘mutual defence clause’ for the first time to combat the perpetrators of the Paris attacks, betting on EU support over NATO in the country's fight against the Islamic State.

Speaking on Monday (16 November) during a joint session of both houses of parliament in Versailles, Hollande said that "France is at war" and that the jihadist group is “not only an enemy of France but an enemy of Europe”.

Following the killing of 129 people on Friday (13 November), Hollande said that France is committed to “destroying” Islamic State.

In a surprise move, he told lawmakers that France will invoke article 42.7 of the EU Treaty during a meeting of EU defence ministers on Tuesday (17 November). The article “provides that when a state is attacked, all member states must bring their solidarity to address the aggression”, Hollande reminded.

Quite what that solidarity will consist of is not clear at this stage but it will be a famous victory (perhaps). It is possible that the various arrests that are being conducted in connection with les événements in Germany and Belgium and, soon, in other countries will be described as an example of Article 42.7 at work.

The story is picked up by EUObserver who also say

"The enemy is Daesh," he said, using the Arabic name for the Islamic State group.

"We shall not just contain it, but destroy it," he said, adding that France will "intensify its operations" in Syria following Monday's raids.

Hollande also wants to build "a large and unique coalition" against the terrorist group.

A coalition of the willing, in fact.

He announced that France has asked for a meeting and a resolution from the UN Security Council.

He also said that he will soon meet US and Russian presidents, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, "to join our forces and reach a conclusion that has been too long overdue."

Does that mean that the sale of Mistrals will go ahead after all?

So, not NATO but the UN Security Council and the EU with American and Russian lifting power and France in charge.

There are also reports of NATO and EU promising to work together though why that should be necessary, given that the EU member states who are likely to do anything are also members of NATO is unclear. But it makes everyone seem important.

NATO and the European Union must work closely to prevent more attacks like those in Paris, the head of the Western military alliance said on Monday, underscoring the risks of unconventional warfare such as cyber attacks and radicalism.

European officials are struggling to provide quick answers on how to counter the threat from Islamic State and other militant groups at a time of falling defense budgets, the lack of a common EU security policy and an overlap with NATO.

"We will redouble our efforts and work even more closely ... to counter the rise of extremism, which can inspire such horrific attacks here at home," said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

Speaking alongside EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, Stoltenberg said NATO and the EU could no longer afford to develop parallel policies towards similar ends. They should work together "hand-in-hand".

This is not the first time France has tried to use a crisis to undermine NATO, push forward the EU and position herself as the lynchpin between Europe, the US and Russia (it used to be the Soviet Union). This time the stakes are very high, especially for France, who experienced the second organized terrorist attack in ten months.

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?

Successors

Philip Hammond it is. I am sure EU Referendum will have much to say on the subject, and very vitriolic it is likely to be. Not sure the whole fiasco with HS2 is a recommendation or statements of this kind but there we are. Justine Greening, a brown-nosed career politician if ever there was one, becomes Transport Secretary. I am sure she will do as she is told.

As ever I have been fascinated by people arguing that Fox should be succeeded by someone who has served in the forces, for instance, Patrick Mercer or one of the Stewarts, Bob or Rory. Why, I ask. Would you want teachers running the education department or a tube driver in charge of transport. Ah but they would know the requirements of the armed forces. Well, no they wouldn't as no soldier knows about the navy or the air force or vice versa. Besides, is that all defence is? The requirements of the armed forces and as much money as spent on them as they demand? I think EU Referendum would have a few answers to that.

Questions asked in the Lords

It is time to catch up with some of what has been going on in the Lords. On Thursday, April 28 there were two Starred Questions that are of some relevance to the subjects this blog discusses.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked:

Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the contribution by the European Union and its predecessors to peace in Europe compared with that of NATO.

A fair question, given the number of times we have been told that the EU and its various predecessors have been crucial to the keeping of the peace in "Europe". Of course, even that is disingenuous: in the eastern and south-eastern parts of Europe peace was conspicuously absent in the decades after the Second World War. But let that pass.

Lord Howell's reply was also disingenous:

My Lords, both the European Union and NATO have made invaluable and complementary contributions to peace in Europe. We do not consider it appropriate to compare the two as they serve different functions. While NATO has ensured, and continues to ensure, our security, there is more to peace than just security. It requires stability, shared values, economic development and political co-operation. The European Union has contributed that. We firmly intend to remain an active and committed member of both.

The subsequent debate covered all the usual points, including role of NATO troops, specifically of American ones, the EU's helplessness when it comes to military matters and its lack of that democracy it is supposed to support in member states.

One has to feel some admiration for Lord Howell who is rather knowledgeable but has to navigate all those shoals, be courteous to everyone (this is not the Lower House, after all) and not step beyond government policy. In fact, the only speaker he seems to have been annoyed by was Lord Dykes, who has appeared on this blog a few times in the past. One cannot really blame Lord Howell.

A few minutes afterwards Lord Campbell of Alloway asked

Her Majesty's Government what proportion of the United Kingdom contribution to the European Union Budget has been signed off by the Court of Auditors over the last 16 years.

Indeed, we all know the answer to that and it is a round number. Lord Campbell asks questions about this periodically, hoping, one assumes, to get some kind of a sensible answer out of whichever governmen happens to be around. He has failed again. This was Lord Sassoon's reply:

My Lords, the UK contributes to the EU budget as a whole, not to individual spending programmes. Therefore, data on UK contributions to the EU budget not signed off by the Court of Auditors are unavailable. However, the recurrent failure to achieve a positive audit opinion from the court on EU's accounts is unacceptable. The Government set out recommendations to improve EU financial management and transparency at ECOFIN in February this year.

Well now, isn't that exciting news? More recommendations. One wonders whether they will be taken up and what will happen with the next EU budget.

To be fair to noble peers, this is a subject they can get quite angry about, presumbly because many of them are businessmen and well aware of the anomaly of a budget that is routinely, year after year, is thrown out by the auditors. What would be the fate of a business of any size to whom this happened?

The most interesting question came from the Countess of Mar, who rarely gets involved in debates on matters European:

My Lords, I recall some 20 years ago the late Lord Bruce of Donington asking very much the same questions repeatedly. Can the Minister say why it is taking so long to resolve this problem?

How very true. We all recall Lord Bruce of Donington, who always had more information in his hands than whichever Minister was replying, asking those questions and, no, nothing much has been done about it since.

According to Lord Sassoon, this is all because of the previous government giving "away a substantial part of the UK's abatement and signed on to a financial perspective that set a course of significantly increasing EU expenditure". That's as may be but the debate was about the Court of Auditors and the EU budget not being signed off, which has been going on for a slightly longer period than the previous government had been in office. Indeed, Lord Bruce's questions go back, to my certain knowledge to John Major's government and, quite possibly, beyond.

Toys, I hear you ask

Readers of this blog and of my previous postings on EURef will know that I am profoundly uninterested in toys, whether they be with wings, guns or wheels. That is the Boss's province. However, I was intrigued by two postings written by the same man Hugh Bicheno (full disclosure: he is, indeed, a good acquaintance) on the subject of the RAF, the "Save the RAF at any Cost Review (SRCR) overseen by the Boy Wonder and his hapless Defence Secretary Lame Fox" and the Libyan adventure we have so unwisely blundered into. Part 1 here and part 2 here.

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.

Hmm, let me think

We find from the news that the government has made another step towards abolishing the Royal Navy and opt out of the global fight against piracy and drug smuggling.

Then we have Georgie-Porgie announcing "an £800m increase to the government’s bank levy" purely because he thinks his Shadow, Ed Balls might accuse him of not being tough enough on bankers and because he thinks banks should not have big profits (nobody should have profits according to the Cleggeron socialists), while still hoping to negotiate some deal whereby those same banks will be forced to lend money to small and medium-sized businesses whether they are a good risk or not. (Are we allowed to whisper sub-prime mortgages?) As the British Bankers' Association pointed out, chopping and changing is not exactly the right way to ensure that Britain remains business-friendly. (Though, it is, as they don't say, just the ticket if all you are looking for is another headline.)

Then there is news that HMG will be demanding that universities should widen the social base of their intake if they want to be allowed to have top-up fees. They must limit the numbers they take from independent schools and lower admission criteria for pupils from what might be termed disadvantaged backgrounds. Of course, the obvious way of restoring the sort of social mobility this country had in the fifties and sixties is to restore the sort of schooling that was provided at the time. That, alas, does not appeal to our government of privately educated nit-wits. (This is being pointed out by the Daily Mail and its blogger Harry Phibbs but screaming abuse at universities and demanding that their standards should drop even more is a much easier option for politicians.)

All I can say is that I am very glad that we no longer have an interfering, big-state, socialist government that surrenders our armed forces to the EU. And that would be quite funny if it wer not so tragic for the country and its people.

This looks rather familiar

Ed Morrissey on Hot Air details the disagreements between what the Russian government and the American government think the new START agreement is about. As he says, these matters should be discussed before the pact is ready to be ratified and has, indeed, been by one side and is about to be by the other. If the Russians decide to add their own interpretation, the new treaty will have to be taken back to Senate who will, probably, not agree to those words about limiting defensive systems.

What caught my eye especially was this paragraph:

This leaves us with very little assurance that Obama has not bargained away missile defense. Their argument, that the preamble is not legally binding, is rather weak. Certainly the preamble exists for a reason; if Obama wanted to protect missile defense, why allow it to be mentioned at all? Doesn’t the existence of the at-least confusing language in the preamble have any meaning, and if it didn’t, why even bother to have a preamble? Clearly, the Russians wanted that language and wanted the preamble, and someone on the American side should have given that enough thought to understand that the Russians would find it meaningful.

How often have we heard from British negotiators of various EU treaties that the Preamble is not legally binding and is of no importance only for them and us to find that it is, indeed, binding and comprises the most important part of the particular agreement. I am rather shocked to find that American negotiators are no better than the British ones.

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.

You say something often enough

Abraham Lincoln famously maintained that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time and he was probably right. The trouble is that the partial fooling of some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time can be quite dangerous.

For some time I have maintained on EUReferendum and other outlets that Russia is not becoming a great power again in any real sense of the world but it is important for President Prime Minister Putin and his teddy bear (mishka), President Medvedev to jump up and down, scream abuse, bully whenever they can and, above all, maintain that Russia is surrounded by enemies or, at least, faces enemies in the West (thus avoiding the issue of the real threat in the East) in order to preserve his their power and the power of the political elite that depends on that unequal duo.

It seems that this line is working with Russians. At least, it works with some Russians and, no doubt, some of the time it works with all or most Russians.

Yesterday, the House of Commons Defence Selec Committee published its Tenth Report, "Russia: a new confrontation?". On the whole, the report is well balanced and I shall do a proper fisking of it in due course.

One particular item has excited attention in the media both here and in other countries. Under the heading "Military Posture" the Committee discusses recent behaviour of the Russian military and the Russian air force. By and large, the conclusion is that a good deal of it is not really a threat, merely posturing.

The issue discussed by the BBC Russian Service this afternoon with my participation was unauthorized flights by military flights into NATO airspace. Apart from the occasional overwrought media report nobody sees this as a military threat but it is not the action of a friendly power and, in any case, presents civil aviation with some problems.

The Committee concludes on this issue:

Russia's unauthorised flights into international airspace, including the UK's flight information region, do not pose a direct security threat to NATO or the UK; nevertheless, they are not the actions of a friendly nation and risk escalating tension. A further issue is that Russia's actions threaten the safety of civil flights and risk leading to serious accidents; Russia should not be
making such flights without informing the appropriate authorities. The Government should take a more robust approach in making clear to Russia that its continued secret incursions by military aircraft into international airspace near to the UK is not acceptable behaviour. The Government should call on NATO to ensure that it monitors and assesses the threat posed by unauthorised Russian military flights into NATO and international airspace near to NATO's territorial perimeter.

The discussion was enlivened by some seriously lunatic comments by Russian experts and by the usual mixture of braggadaccio and self-pity. One particular expert could not understand what the fuss was about as Russia and Britain have been allies for three hundred years (well, more or less I'd say and often less rather than more). When asked whether that did not mean that Russia should cease its incursions he showed some indignation: the idea of Russia actually showing consideration for other countries was ridiculous. People should not make such a fuss.

The most interesting part was the two minute Vox Pop section with questions asked on the streets of Moscow. Of the dozen or so people only one suggested that the government should be paying attention to the economic situation of the country and the lives of the people if it really wanted Russia to be a great country.

All the others maintained, without clearly understanding what was being discussed, that Russia had every right to train its pilots where it wanted to and it was very important to show that it was once again a great and powerful country that can defend itself because clearly people wanted to attack it.

As to who might be lining up to attack it remained undiscussed as did the undoubted fact that Russia's military might is very low-grade at the moment. Let us not forget that during last year's war in Georgia the Caucasian army could not be relied on and an elite regiment from the Moscow area had to be thrown into the rather limited battles. Nor did Russia ever admit precisely how many aeroplanes it lost in the conflict.

Nevertheless, the dual myth of Russia rising from her knees to show the world its mettle and Russia the victim of ruthless enemies who are waiting to destroy it seems to have taken root in the Russian psyche. Not a happy thought.