Tuesday 15 May 2012  On the eve of a Nato summit in Chicago, the first to be hosted by the US since 1999, the American think-tank, Atlantic Council, has published a report arguing for the enduring importance of Nato. Written by former under secretary of state and US ambassador to Nato, R. Nicholas Burns, and entitledAnchoring the Alliance the report argues that Nato is a "force multiplier" for the US and "remains essential to addressing the security challenges of a globalized world". Nato remains central in the coming decade, it says, the United States will have to provide strong leadership of the Alliance, Europe must maintain its aspirations for global leadership, and the Alliance as a whole must strengthen its engagement with global partners. Deconstructing this, in part, one gets from Burns what appears to be a worrying contradiction, in that there is overt support for Nato, yet he also supports the aspirations of "Europe" for global leadership. Just as it is difficult to imagine scenarios in which the United States will engage in combat without allies, Burns says, Nato is unlikely to undertake future operations without the participation and support of "key partners" from outside the Alliance. The involvement of Nato partners has become the "new normal", Burns adds, then telling us that, "One of the most important partnerships for the Alliance is with the European Union". It shares twenty-one members in common with the Alliance and offers complementary capabilities to Nato. This though, is the least of it. Earlier in the report, we have Burns asserting that key European allies cannot sustain a vigorous and effective Nato without an involved and committed United States. The United States, he says, remains the "essential" power in Europe and the only country capable of providing effective leadership of the Atlantic Alliance. For Europe to take its full place as a global partner of the United States, the United States will have to remain at the forefront of leading Nato. Then, it gets even more complicated. A successful Nato, Burns would have us believe, also demands that the UK retain the ambition and military capability that have made it one of the world’s most influential countries in recent decades. The US has no better or more capable ally than the UK. There is indeed a "special relationship" between the two nations based on shared heritage and a willingness to act in pursuit of a common strategic vision. But, he says, the operational nature of the "special relationship" is at risk. Burns that wants us to put more money in the kitty, although he has other ideas for us improving military capacity, but he then goes on to criticise Cameron's coalition government has yet to develop a coherent strategic vision for the United Kingdom's role in a changing global landscape. Now, however, my brain starts seriously to hurt, when Burns complains that the coalition "has downplayed the term 'special relationship' with the United States at the same time his government has weakened its ties to Europe". Cameron's handling of a decisive December 2011 European "summit" threatens to leave London isolated as Europe pursues further fiscal integration. Aside from pursuing a policy of "commercial diplomacy" and robust development assistance, British foreign policy vision and strategy remain unclear. London, he says, must demonstrate the ambition and capability to be a leading global security actor in concert with the United States and other Nato allies. Putting all this together, one gets the idea that Nato is a "Good Thing" – for the United States, because it acts as a force multiplier, for the United States. For it to work effectively – for the US – the United States is going to have to lead it. It is all right, though, for "Europe" to have global aspirations, but that requires of the said Europe to take its full place as a global partner of the United States. The UK, on the other hand, should improve its operational capability, and it should maintain its special relationship with the US. In addition, it should strengthen its ties with Europe, while "demonstrating the ambition and capability to be a leading global security actor in concert with the United States and other Nato allies". That is my "take" on this report – an outrageous summary, but I've done my best to be faithful to the content. And, as you might imagine, by now I am in serious pain, struggling to get to grips with something which seems incoherent and contradictory. The Failygraph, however, has its own "take" and you may prefer it – although you might think that we have been reading completely different reports. On the other hand, I may have misread the report, or completely misunderstood it. Clearly lacking the skills set of a US ambassador, or a Failygraph hack, one hopes that is the reason for my failure to understand. Nevertheless, as it stands, I am utterly confused. Richard North 15/05/2012 |
Tuesday 15 May 2012  Senior Labour ranks are considering an in/out referendum on the European Union, "it emerged yesterday" – according to the Daily Wail. This is shadow chancellor Ed Balls, and he was actually on prime-time BBC News yesterday, saying as much in a very down-key fashion. But that is translated into a politicians who has "admitted the public could have their say on whether Britain should continue its membership of the crisis-hit EU in the years to come". Now we get to the "pressure is mounting" meme, the hare having been set running by a claque of journalists, even though it has no substance whatsoever, and the idea of the Tories offering a referendum has been trashed by Wee Willie. This then, is sheer political opportunism. Because the Tories are rejecting the idea, Balls is pitching in trying to scoop up some Brownie points. Thus does he tells us: "Whether there could be a case for there being a referendum more widely on Britain’s relationship with Europe as a new settlement evolves ... that might be an issue whose time comes". This is not exactly a cast-iron commitment – not that people have been at all taken in by it. The best scoring comment on the Wail has Tim Hall of Ashted shouting: "WE ARE NOT FALLING FOR IT, YOU WESTMINSTER MAGGOTS! WE DESPISE EVERY ONE OF YOU!" Needless to say, the Wail is playing its two-faced game. On the one hand it maintains its pro-EU stance while, on the other, it is talking up a referendum. "Dave", the paper says, "needs to bind his party together, not drive it apart. Now that Labour is toying with the idea of offering a referendum on British membership of the EU, perhaps it is time for the PM to act boldly - and stall the Miliband bandwagon". Thus is the vital issue of our membership of the EU in danger of becoming a plaything for the groupescules, a battle fought not out of commitment but for short-term political gain. And, when push comes to shove, we can see the players who so stridently called for a referendum turning coat and telling us to vote to remain in the Union. Lemming-like, a faction of the eurosceptic movement is rushing to its own oblivion, in supporting this naked political ploy. The way out of the EU is to present to the public a more attractive and realisable alternative. Fighting on the ground chosen by your enemies is tactical suicide, and the only thing in which so many of our allies excel. Why then are they so intent on letting the Westminster maggots chose the battlefield? The people calling for an EU referendum are not our friends – they are not even allies. |
Posts
