Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Needless to say, it would be nice to be done entirely with such expensive and dangerous weapons, but Britain alone cannot not achieve anything with unilateral moves, except disadvantage the UK’s strategic position.
However, nuclear disarmament can only work if all potential competitors agree to do likewise, and in a simultaneous and verifiable fashion.
Iran: Strategically this is a fairly direct neighbour. Iran claims in addition to us and the French, the US and Israel as concerns. Rivalry of course also with Russia.
Russia: Whilst there may not be much threat of any kind of serious conflict, we cannot know what the future holds, and in addition growing energy dependence on Russia would mean that our nuclear climbdown would shift the balance of power and influence excessively to Russia. So, what drives Russian nuclear arms policy? Its additional strategic neighbours and competitors are Iran, China and the US.
What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
Israel: To offset its numerical and spatial disadvantage vis a vis its neighbours, and because of Iran's programme, any Israeli disarmament moves are effectively impossible. And who knows who will follow in the region once Iran goes nuclear and the US-UK coalition abandons the region to its own devices: Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the most likely candidates; but more on this later.
China: Obviously the US is the main concern for China and additionally India plays a role, just as North Korea will be of some concern. Additionally a failure to contain North Korea and the weakening of American leadership would lead to more proliferation: most likely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and maybe Australia.
US: Strategic concerns about Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.
So again: What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
North Korea: nukes used to extract international aid, strategic concern about the US and China.
India: Rivalry with Pakistan and China.
If we now add in Pakistan (vis a vis India, perhaps Iran), we have all the world's nuclear powers involved. From this we can conclude that the nuclear disarmament of Western Europe will only be possible within a framework that sees total global nuclear disarmament.
Whilst the likelihood of this is fairly small, formulating this as an end goal for British foreign policy to support is nonetheless right.
But before this can come about, Britain is right to keep its nukes, while making sure that the numbers are as small as possible. And on this, the Government for once seems to have got it right.
Labels: China, defence, Egypt, EU, France, global affairs, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
So, Red China's head is on a state visit. Whilst I see the necessity of not being actively hostile to countries like Communist China, can someone please tell me why we roll out the red carpet (literally red!) for people like this? I mean business meetings with the Government is ok, but parading down the Mall with the Queen and the Household Division, having London landmarks lit up in red and having gigantic Chinese flag stuck on Horseguards Parade? I find it quite repellent. State visits should only be granted to visitors from moderately acceptable regimes. 'nuff said.
As for those elections in Azerbaijan, there are reports about quite a lot of irregularities and there has been at least verbal censure from the West, though I doubt anything much in practical steps will happen, as I hinted at recently. Katy at blogrel has some good news on the mood she picked up from Azeris about the Karabagh conflict. I think that is also the most practical solution to the conflict. All sides, particularly the outside powers, can keep their strategic goodies, but it would improve the lot of the people actually having to live there on the ground.
In the current imbroglio over the new anti-terror laws I notice one oddity about Blair's stance in regards to how he treats the advice of the "professionals", ie the police and intelligence services. It seems they are the best fount of knowledge when it comes to balancing political goods, in this case security and liberty. At the same time, there is some disgruntlement by Blair about Sir Christopher Meyer's views on Iraq. What this underlines is how, when it came to making the decision about Iraq, Blair was quite happy to ignore the wishes of the "professionals", ie the diplomatic corps and the military, when making a political decision. And quite rightly so, too. Strange though, that now the professionals agree with him, he's quite eager to roll their expertise out. Funny that . . .
Labels: Azerbaijan, China, law & order, terrorism
Monday, February 28, 2005
Well, although it is apparently impossible to stand up to the encroachments of the EU when it comes to fisheries policy, constitutional reform, selling arms to China, the negative consequences for transatlantic relations of the EU’s defence technology developments, restricting our freedom of manouvre on asylum policy or anything else you wish to choose. But no, lo and behold, when it comes to trashing our liberties for some ill-defined and possibly ineffective security measures, well that’s ok of course then. For that we can just go and tear up the European Human Rights Convention and ignore the stipulations of the EU. It almost makes me think that on the other issues the Government doesn’t care or perhaps is in agreement with those policies, rather than valiantly trying to fight for Britain’s interests, but simply not being strong enough. Does make me wonder . . .
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Robin Cook is exasperated: he dearly longs for the International Criminal Court to take up investigations into crimes against humanity in Darfur, and is angered by the US’s hostile attitude to the court, which apparently the only problem preventing the ICC’s glorious justice and peace decending upon Darfur.
Hmm, should have done his homework methinks:
The Rome Statute, which created the ICC, gives it the authority to handle genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. But the court can only consider these crimes if it also has jurisdiction over the accused. The Rome Statute requires that those persons be either nationals of a state party to the treaty or people acting there. Sudan hasn't ratified the statute, so the ICC could only hear cases from Darfur that involve non-Sudanese nationals from states recognizing the court - hardly the bulk, one suspects, of the perpetrators.
Yet the UN panel ignored this requirement
The author also rightly criticises the US government’s decision to label events in Darfur as genocide and then do nothing about them.
There are several points missing so far: how is the ICC’s ruling going to be enforced? You know, when domestic courts make a decision they send out the police, so when an international court makes a decision it sends out the . . . international police? Except of course there isn’t one. So short of a US-led military intervention, what options are there really for dealing with the problem? As far as I can see there is only one: withdrawal of uncondtional diplomatic support and the imposition of economic sanctions on Sudan by China. Is that going to happen? Doesn’t look like it, but either way, that has nothing to do with the ICC and US attitudes to transnational institutions, and it makes Cook look a bit like an uberpartisan hack trying to suggest otherwise. If anybody in the West can really be faulted here it is the EU’s desire to export huge amounts of high-tech weaponry to China, and thus not exactly penalise China for supporting the murderous rampage in Darfur.
PS: And am I the only one who thinks Robin Cook’s language is inappropriate for a proper politician:
Under the Conservatives, Britain had been a backmarker in negotiations to set up such a court. After the change of regime
And then there’s this debasement of language:
For the past four years, the Bush administration has pursued a relentless pogromagainst the court.
Labels: China, global affairs, Sudan, USA
The EU’s relations to China are in the news ever more frequently, in this case my interest was roused by this must-read article by Hans Binnendijk, director of the Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the National Defense University in Washington. It underlines again the potentially catastrophic consequences for transatlantic relations, national security and the stability of the pacific region of the EU going ahead with its plans to lift the arms embargo on China. (And just to clear it up, the economic argument for such an unlimited arms trade is virtually non-existent as David Leigh and Samuel Brittan has shown repeatedly.)
Richard North pointed out that this would undoubtedly lead to the US using its missile defence weapons to destroy the Gallileo sattelites. Just try and picture that in full. It would make the transatlantic rifts and arguments over Iraq look like a Sunday picnic. It is given a further little spice for us in the UK. It is possible, if not certain yet, that in July and the previous December, and it is clear that nothing on this front has improved. But don’t expect to hear much about this in the coming election campaign.
Labels: China, defence, EU, USA
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Which country will rule the roost in the century ahead? Can you tell? Well isn’t that a game everyone interested in politics likes playing? I’m not going to give much of my own thoughts on this, but just point to these snippets:
To add to the growing chorus recognizing that China is overrated here’s John Derbyshire:
Britain... America... notice anything? The great successes of these two nations rest(ed) in the Anglo-Saxon political traditions of personal autonomy, freedom under law, representative legislatures, and limited government. China has no such traditions: has, in fact, all the OPPOSITE traditions. I see no sign that this is changing. Rather the contrary: as China becomes richer and more confident, the ancient norms are re-asserting themselves. . . . 100 years ago there were excellent grounds for arguing that the 20th century would be Germany's, or Russia's, or Japan's -- or even China's! Things didn't work out that way. Why? Politics. Before we arrive in Mr. Rees-Mogg's economistical utopia, there is still plenty of old-fashioned politics to be traveled through.
Japan is once more going from strength to strength, and this time not just on the economic front. Militarily, diplomatically and in terms of cultural influence and general global activism, Japan is transforming itself, and at speed - not merely into a "normal" country, but into a formidable player across a wide front.
But more important even than America’s dynamism and economic resilience is the durability of its central ethos: the power of freedom. The genius of the founding fathers, which was celebrated again yesterday, has created the world ’s most stable, successful, and, for all the current phobias, still the most appealing model of society for humankind. The world may grow and change around it, but I would not bet on America’s eclipse just yet.
Labels: China, global affairs, Japan, USA
