The Bewilderness

Round One in Kiev

The media outside of the Ukraine may view recent developments in terms of winners and losers. The protestors have ended their occupation of government buildings after the authorities accepted an amnesty for all those who demonstrated against the current regime. Many have bandied round the thought of a 'civil war' if President Vanukovych had continued to tighten repression.  

Against a backdrop of economic chaos and self-organising militias, the picture that beckons is anarchy, rather than conflict. Yanukovych can no longer command the support of the Ukrainian elite as the fall of the government has demonstrated. The authority of the institutions has been checked and weakened by the streets.

Ukraine remains in a stand-off, not a lockdown. Protestors and government are getting their breath back, but it is unclear if President Yanukovych can co-operate with the disaffected. This is the second potential revolution in a decade and people will not be satisfied with a tinkering of the status quo. I wonder how much has to go?  

A Century of War comes to an end (for now)

Be careful what you wish for. The Guardian's article on the army notes that we have withdrawn from Afghanistan, this may be the first year that the country has not waged conflict since 1914 (or 1707)...take your pick! A cautious Ministry of Defence has noted this vacation from war as a "strategic pause". 

Usually when such interregnums occur, the next war caused by a geopolitical surprise or some enterprising ally, usually intervenes. The Guardian makes great play with the notion that a more multicultural Britain is less inclined to go to war, especially in majority Muslin countries. Their simplistic glee at this withdrawal shines faintly through the article. Yet, there is no evidence that this is the case(One could argue that increased immigration and trouble leads to support for quelling sources of terrorism: the theory behind Iraq).

Professor Richard English, a historian at St Andrews University who studies war and terrorism, said that although many British Muslims had been greatly concerned that their country was waging war in Muslim countries, Britain's war-weariness was a more complex and extensive phenomenon.

"It may be that multiculturalism is a grace note or a second melody in there – I'm not sure that it's the main thing," he said. Instead, he believes war-weariness is focused on Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of what he described as "the dodgy bill of goods" that led to the former and the uncertain achievements of the latter.

"The decision in the House of Commons about Syria was really a decision about Iraq, but a few years late," he said.

English added that war-weariness was a cyclical affair. "It is always easy between conflicts to forget how nasty they are, and this amnesia is one of our worst enemies.

We are tired of war for a while.

Toxic

British and French leaders disagree on European reform. The BBC shocks with its surprise headline. And an insightfully thin article: the British want changes (actually the Conservatives would like to repatriate powers...unmentioned) and the French prefer the status quo, or their position of predominant influence....also unmentioned. 

The actual details of the summit indicate that the French view British deregulation of Europe as "toxic". Looks like Hollande is lining up the radical right as his replacement.

 

An entente not yet cordiale

Whereas Russia may favour bellicose utterances in reaction to specific developments, the diplomatic events of recent weeks support a certain pratical warming towards the West. Some of this is propelled by necessity: the security of the winter Olympics at Sochi on the Black Sea and a tentative fear within the Russian elites that plunging fuel prices could jeopardise the hard-won financial stability of centralised Muscovy. Some of it may be shoring up the flanks. Russia does not require hostility from Europe when that alliances that have cemented relationships with China appear far more fragile under the troubles hitting China's maritime littoral. China is unpredictable in its associations.

If any country's relationships with Russia plunged to low depths then it was the United Kngdom. However, backchannels have been lit up for some years now and, like France, expanding co-operation is achieved through the defence industries. A treaty on co-operation (in non-sensitive technology) has been underway for some months. It should soon be signed.

These small steps indicate that Russia understands the fear of two armed camps and, wisely, does not wish to see conflict in East Asia pull other countries within its orbit. A multipolar world is to be welcomed but neutrality is becoming a natural option: Russia is a European power with interests in Asia; or an Asian power that extends to Europe. It just depends upon who is asking. 

Sharon

Ariel Sharon, the warrior turned politician, has finally slipped away after a coma. He remained in this steady state of unconscious limbo for eight years. What would he say of the changes that have occurred in his absence: the Arab Spring and the US withdrawal from the Middle East? 

Judicious aggression and self-reliance are two of the values invoked by the Israeli political elite as they bind past and present. The United States cannot be viewed as an eternal ally of Israel and, from their perspective, its fickle nature has been self-evident of late with the rapprochement of Iran. Sharon would not have trusted an elected Islamist president. Hamas had already invoked one man, one vote, one time. He might have expected no less from elections in the Arab spring and warned that the most likely outcome was instability, chaos and war.

It is disappointing that the world has lived down to Sharon's expectations. As a consequence, the world is less safe for Israel and less safe for us.  

When does the Commons have a vote on war?

Does Parliament now have a vote before soldiers are ever sent into action? This seems to be the argument of Anne Perkins. Would this override treaty obligations such as NATO?

The answer is surely negative. Specific interventions, subject or not to UN approval, may now require parliementary approval. Defending British territory or meeting treaty obligations are surely still the prerogative of the executive. Could one foresee the PM demanding a vote if Britain were invaded or if Article V of the NATO Charter was invoked?

Mapping this precedent will take some time and further wars.

I want to make my mark on the BreXit ballot

The Liberal Democrats promised, once upon a time, in their manifesto that the British electorate should hold an In-Out referendum on EU membership. Soon after, they reneged on this promise. Their reasons for this change have never held water. Their unprincipled nature is clear. Every policy adopted is clothed in sanctimonious and hypocritical language though it is designed for naked advantage. This extends from House of Lords reform to the proportional representation vote.

It is an unedifying sight to watch unelected Lords, put their through the patronage of their parties, conspire to remove the right of the British public to vote on the most important relationship in this polity. Their actions show that they do not trust us and that is reflected straight back at these apparatchiks. 

For an issue of such importance, and as an opportunity which Labour and the Liberal Democrats loathe, the Tory government should use the Parliament Act to force through this democratic measure. We deserve no less. 

Breaking Brexit

Dan Hannan, writing in The Parliament, provides some flesh on the current thinking of Tory Eurosceptics; so far let down by the existing leadership. What would a Brexit look like? 

Hann points out that the Europhile polemicists attack a straw man that does not exist. They argue that Britain would have no ties with Europe after a referendum and negotiation, even though there would be strong ties between the offshore island and the onshore core. This would count for nothing apparently.

Hannan and other Eurosceptics point out that some trade agreement is appropriate with access to the single market, whether through fax diplomacy or negotiated agreement. We shall see how this develops: but economic arguments alone will not win this debate.

 

An Anglosphere reference

The New Criterion has a special issue on the concept of 'The Anglosphere' and its cultural consequences. All articles are behind a firewall but worth perusing. Hopefully, they will be reprinted in a more accessible format.

Ukraine's dilemmas

A number of protests have continued to spell out the 'stable crisis' in the Ukraine that now runs into 2014. Thousands of protestors flocked to celebrate the Western New Year: a date that marks their promotion of Western perspectives and a release from Orthodoxy (in its Greek or Marxist-Leninist variants). A subtext within the prevailing political protest against President Yanukovych.

While they waved their flags, fifteen thousand nationalists marched to commemorate the birthday of Stepan Bandera in 1907. Founder of the League of Ukrainian Nationalist, Bandera is a figure of some controversy, having allied with the Nazis twice during World War 2. A reminder that the history of Ukrainian nationalism is not strewn with liberal democrats. (A run of bad luck for the country as a borderland between two totalitarian visions of modernity). 

Svoboda, the nationalist party, is linked with the protests and this march. A reminder that the people may fly EU flags and yearn for a more respectable country, where laws are followed and bribes are abnormal, yet all remains unclear. The Ukrainians are more nationalist, but are they yet liberal? And will their fellow Russians follow them west?