Is it time for a new Magna Carta?

Alphen, Netherlands. 15 June. Is it time for a new Magna Carta?  Historian Simon Schama called it the “death certificate of despotism”. Eight hundred years ago today at Runnymede on an island in the middle of the River Thames midway between Staines and Windsor King John applied the Royal Seal to a document which in many ways became the foundation of contemporary Western ideas of liberty, democracy and law.  Magna Carta (Great Charter) or Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of the Liberties) established the principle that not even monarchs were above the law and thus marked the beginning of the long end of arbitrary power in England and beyond. 

For most of those present at the sealing of Magna Carta it did not hold the significance it has come to represent today.  The Charter was essentially a deal between King John (1199-1216) and his barons designed to protect their Anglo-Norman aristocratic rights in the face of the king’s insatiable demands for money.  However, at least two men present may have had an inkling of the political and legal significance of the document; Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton and William the Marshal, First Earl of Pembroke.

Archbishop Langton was the man who negotiated the Charter and acted as intermediary between King John and the barons. The irony is that Archbishop Langton’s election as archbishop represented an early struggle between ‘Europe’ and England.  Langton was anointed by Pope Innocent III in a struggle between Rome and King John that would have implications in time almost important as Magna Carta itself. 

William the Marshall was perhaps the greatest ever medieval knight (and a particular hero of mine).  Born in Wiltshire in 1146 into a relatively modest lower aristocratic family he became Europe’s leading chivalric champion, winning jousts across the Continent.  He went on to become England’s leading soldier and indeed under Henry II a leading statesman.  Renowned for his honour and probity Marshall was a man who stood on principle. 

Magna Carta’s key provisions were Articles 39 and 40 both of which suggest the influence of Langton and Marshall. Article 39 states that “No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimised, neither will we [the royal ‘we’] attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land”.  Article 40 states, “To no-one will we sell, to no-one will we refuse or delay right or justice”. 

Although Pope Innocent declared the Charter unlawful as part of a grubby and ultimately failed rapprochement with King John the document was established in legal and political principle. Following the death of John from dysentery in 2016 Marshall was appointed regent to the child king Henry III and re-confirmed Magna Carta following his defeat of the French at the Battle of Lincoln in 1217.  The Charter was also cited by Simon de Montfort at what is regarded as the first modern English Parliament in 1265.  In the sixteenth century Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta in the struggle with both King James I and King Charles I over the primacy of Parliament, which led to the English Civil War (1642-1649), and the creation of England’s first and only republic under Oliver Cromwell. 

Magna Carta was central to the idea of constitutional monarchy that was established with the Restoration in 1660 and suffused the Glorious Revolution in 1688 when it was feared that King James II wanted to re-establish an absolutist monarchy.  Above all, Magna Carta inspired the 1789 American Constitution which began the long internationalisation of the Charter which continues to this day.

The essential point of the Charter concerns the right to trial of an individual by one’s peers.  This principle of the right to trial by equals has not only underpinned English law for centuries it is the central pillar of English democracy and Parliament.  Indeed, it is the idea of the peer review of power and policy that underpins the idea of parliamentary sovereignty precisely because the Charter was in time used to establish Parliament as the law of the land overseeing the law of the land, not the monarch.

Ironically, parliamentary sovereignty is under as great a threat today as at any time since 1215.  Whereas in the past Magna Carta was the great principled barrier against the ambitions of tyrants and unscrupulous monarchs today it is challenged by those all too willing to transfer power away from Parliament to Brussels bureaucrats without the will of the people having been consulted or expressed. There are clearly those in Brussels who harbour the ambition that in time they will become the new law of and in England’s lands.

Therefore, whilst those present at the sealing of Magna Carta would not have understood the concept of democratic deficit they were unwittingly at Runnymede to address it.  Today, as power leeches away from Parliament and is rendered ever further distant from the people and with ever more laws being applied from Brussels in the form of European regulations or directives it may be time to issue a new Magna Carta that returns once again power to the people.

Julian Lindley-French

HSBC: Banking on Asia’s Stability

Alphen, Netherlands. 12 June. Many years ago when I first arrived in Hong Kong I opened an account at the local branch of my local bank, the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation.  It was clearly an important moment in the bank’s history as since then HSBC has grown into one of the world’s largest banks.  When Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997 HSBC moved its headquarters to London.  Threatening to move the bank back to Hong Kong HSBC Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver this week said, “We recognise the world has changed and we need to change with it”.  Is this sound business strategy or yet another big bank gamble?

All things being equal Gulliver’s threat makes business sense. Excluding Japan Asia grew by 6% in 2014.  China’s economy grew by 8%, although down from the stunning 14% in 2007. These growth figures compared with a lamentable 0.5% in the Eurozone, the real EU. Predictions of structural economic shift are even more compelling.  According to American investment bankers Goldman Sachs, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) surpassed that of Britain in 2005 and Germany in 2008, and could even surpass the Americans as early as next year.  The Carnegie Foundation for International Peace suggests that by 2050 the three so-called ‘mega-economies’ China, India and the US will enjoy a combined GDP worth 70% more than the combined economies of all the remaining G20 states.

It is also true that HSBC has been particularly hit hard by the cult of ‘banker bashing’ beloved of the British media, the British government’s use of a banking levy to boost the national exchequer, and efforts by the European Commission to impose a whole raft of regulation on the City of London.  London clearly is no longer the the unregulated casino that a) made the City attractive to global banks; and b) encouraged casino banking.

However, all things are not equal in the world in which mega-banks live.  ‘The world’s local bank’, like many such super-corporations, believes it is too big for any single national regulator.  However, no institution bank of government is bigger than geopolitics, something British Chancellor George Osborne also fails to appreciate.  In other words, being domiciled in a place which offers sound regulation and the rule of established law clearly benefits corporations.

There is as ever a bigger picture (to which this blog is slavishly devoted). Asia might indeed be growing faster than Europe, which remains mired in the Euro crisis, the longest economic suicide in history.  However, for all of its many challenges Europe, and indeed the UK remains far more politically stable than Asia.  First, while bankers lament the regulation that has been imposed upon them their own egregious disregard for law means such regulation is self-inflicted and clearly necessary.  Second, banks need a sound legal framework in which to conduct their business and Europe/UK offers such legal stability.  Third, much of Asia’s recent growth is the function of an asset bubble and could crash at any moment.  Fourth, many Asian economies remain unreformed and are probably less prepared than many European economies for the inevitable next crash.  Fifth, the emergence of an assertive China has raised the prospect of real conflict in Asia, possibly war.

Now, if the United States succeeds in establishing a Trans-Pacific Partnership alongside a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership then Asia’s economic dynamism might become more embedded in stable pan-regional politics.  However, stabilising institutions, such as ASEAN and the APEC regime, remain weak. China, not without reason, is suspicious that the TPP is an American attempt to constrain and contain Beijing.  Nor is the future attitude or political direction of China at all clear, not least in its treatment of Hong Kong.  HSBC might well find that having moved its headquarters back to Hong Kong it is subject to the most arbitrary of regulatory regimes with no legal recourse or redress.

Furthermore, the evidence suggests that many Western-based or inspired corporations are ever more conscious of the trade-off to be made between the promise of short-term growth and the need for political stability.  In his January 2015 State of the Union Address President Obama said, “More than half of manufacturing executives have said they are actively looking at bringing back jobs from China”.  Just as HSBC thinks about de-shoring from London many corporations are considering re-shoring.

So, Mr Gulliver and his team have a very important strategic decision to make when they make their final judgment at year’s end whether or not to quit London.  The world is indeed changing but not as much as Mr Gulliver would seem to believe.  And. all things being equal, London remains a haven of stability in an unstable world, open to the world (in spite of EU efforts to prevent that) with a culture of government that remains sensitive to the needs of big business, at times far more than I believe appropriate for a modern Western democracy.

My bet is that in a decade or so we will look back at those who predicated the economic eclipse of the West by Asia as misguided prophets.  Rather like today we look at Francis Fukuyama and his 1990 prediction that liberal-democracy and free markets represented the perfect political state and thus the end of history.  Sound business strategy or gamble? 

Julian Lindley-French

Brexit Watch: Dave’s Haggle-free, Life of Brian In-In Referendum

Dave the Desperate: “How much? Quick, I need to con the British people by the end of 2017 to stay in the EU”.
Angela the Haggler: “What?”
Dave the Desperate: “It's for my political survival”.
Angela the Haggler: “Oh. Uhhh, let’s say a meaningless declaration exempting Britain from ever closer union and some tripe about my agreeing non-existent welfare caps for EU migrants”.
Dave the Desperate: “Right”.
Angela the Haggler: “What?”
Dave the Desperate: “There you are”.
Angela the Haggler: “Wait a minute”. 
Dave the Desperate:   What?
Angela the Haggler: “Well, we're-- we're supposed to haggle”.
Dave the Desperate: “No, no, no. I've got to get this in-in referendum sorted”.
Angela the Haggler: “What do you mean, 'no, no, no'?”
Dave the Desperate: “I haven't time. I've got—“
Angela the Haggler: “Well, in that case I withdraw the bit about migrants and I may have to reconsider the bit about ever closer union”.
Dave the Desperate: “No, no, no. We just agreed”.
Angela: “Jean-Claude!”
Jean-Claude the Juncker: “Yeah?”
Angela the Haggler: “Dave won't haggle”.
Jean-Claude the Juncker: “Won't haggle?!”
Dave the Desperate: “All right. Do we have to?”
Angela the Haggler: “Now, look, Dave. I want an open mind on future British Euro membership, a recognition that ever closer union is a good thing if not for now, and a commitment from you to end parliamentary sovereignty so that Britain becomes a German Lande, sorry, I mean a province in a federal European super-state. Fair enough?”
Dave the Desperate: “I-- I just gave you a commitment to stay in the EU whatever the British people think”.
Angela the Haggler: “Now, are you telling me that the EU’s not worth a bit of lost sovereignty? You were happy enough to give it away to the Americans during our last little bit of local difficulty.”
Dave the Desperate: “No”.
Angela the Haggler: “Look at the EU. Feel the equality. I am determined to impose it. I am offering you a real special relationship in which you get to agree what I decide.  Not like that American nonsense. Britain’s Athens to America’s Rome. What do you British smoke?”
Dave the Desperate: “All right. I'll concede you ever closer union. Just don’t tell the British people until after I’ve conned them into voting to stay in”.
Angela the Haggler: “No, no, no, Dave. Come on. Do it properly”.
Dave the Desperate: “What?”
Angela the Haggler: “Haggle properly. The EU isn't worth ever closer union, and a minor cap on migrant welfare rights. And if you fall for that bit about eventually joining the Euro you are even weaker and more stupid than I really think you are.  Between you and me, the whole damned single currency thing was a terrible mistake, does not work and never will. We thought we were engineering a Euro-Deutschmark. Turns out we have the Euro-lire.  Need I say more?”
Dave the Desperate: “Well, you just said it was worth the effort”.
Angela the Haggler: “Ohh, dear. Ohh, dear, Dave. Come on. Haggle”.
Dave the Desperate: “Huh. All right. I'll concede you a bit on the migrant welfare thing”.
Angela the Haggler: “That's more like it, Dave. Are you trying to insult me?  Me, with a dying Greek grandmother?! And, ever closer union?!"
Dave the Desperate: “All right. I'll give you the migrant welfare thing and ever closer union”.
Angela the Haggler: “Now you're gettin' it, Dave. Migrant welfare and a bit of ever closer union!? Did I hear you right?! This will cost me at least a Grexit. You want to ruin me?!”
Dave the Desperate: “Ever closer union, the migrant welfare thing, the immediate scrapping of Parliament, Britain’s unconditional surrender and Britain to pay for the Greeks?”
Angela the Haggler: “No, no, no, no”!
Dave the Desperate: “…and the immediate arrest of the Queen and Germany to win every World Cup hereafter?”
Angela the Haggler: “No, no. You go to everything but the World Cup thing.  We bought that year’s ago”.
Dave the Desperate: “All right. All right! I'll give you ever closer union, the scrapping of Parliament, unconditional surrender, Britain to pay for the Greeks AND execution of anyone who says Germans lack a sense of humour!”
Angela the Haggler: “German sense of humour?! Are you joking?!”
Dave the Desperate: “That's what you told me to say”.
Angela the Haggler: “Ohh, dear”.
Dave the Desperate: “Ohh, tell me what to say. Please!”
Angela the Haggler: “Offer me full control of Britain, including that lunatic Celtic fringe of yours.  They want to be German anyway”.
Dave the Desperate: “OK. I'll give you full control of Britain”.
Angela the Haggler (to Jean-Claude the Juncker): “Dave's offering me full control of Britain, can you believe it? I was only meant as a joke. Why would I want it? We own the Greeks already”.
Dave the Desperate: “And, I will make it compulsory that Germany won the war is taught in all British schools”.
Angela the Haggler: “OK. Britain commits to ever closer union, the scrapping of Parliament, unconditional surrender, no migrant welfare stuff, the arrest of the Queen, the compulsory teaching in all British schools that Germany won the war and you pay for the Greeks.  AND, no more of those appalling full English breakfasts with their totally un-German bratwursty things.  Moreover, you will admit in public that Germans do have a sense of humour. Good, the renegotiation is complete and I will fully support your in-in referendum. Jean-Claude will too.  Won’t you Jean-Claude.  A pleasure to do business with you, Dave.”
Angela the Haggler: "Just one thing, Dave. Why are you holding this referendum?"

Julian Lindley-French

Royal Marines: Innovation Force

Devonport, England. 8 June.  This is home to me. Plymouth and Devonport is where my family have spent generations as part of a Royal Navy that stretches back to Drake and the Armada and far beyond, a Navy which has ebbed and flowed with the many tides of British history. This visit has been particularly gratifying because I had the very distinct honour of addressing officers of the Naval Service at HMS Drake on what I call strategic amphibiosity – the vital and continuing importance of Britain’s ability to exert influence at sea and on land from the sea.

Equally, there are times when I must admit the strategic illiteracy of the British political class and the terrible damage done to Britain’s strategic brand by massive and frankly ill-considered cuts to the British armed forces infuriate and depress me.  And I am not alone. Last week US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said of Britain, “I think it’s a great loss to the world when a country of that much history and standing takes actions which seem to indicate disengagement”. This week I learn that a further £0.5bn of cuts are to be made to Britain’s armed forces. The fact that the announcement came BEFORE the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR 2015) has been completed demonstrates all too clearly the refusal of government to properly consider ends, ways and means.  Clearly, no real strategic assessment will be made BEFORE government decides how much it is gonig to spend, or rather not spend on defence. Thus SDSR 2015 will be yet another Treasury-led strategic pretence and impecunity review. 

Worse, my visit took place against the backdrop of a new report from the House of Commons Library showing the extent of Cameron’s penchant for gesture politics and the absurdity of it. According to the report British taxpayer’s aid money is being used to subsidise the armed forces of foreign powers even whilst Britain’s armed forces are being cut.  For example, between 2013 and 2014 Tanzania’s defence spending increased from $300m to $400m following receipt of £224m ($342m) of British taxpayer's money; DRC boosted defence spending from $430m to $460m following receipt of £206m ($314m); Bangladesh increased defence spending from $180m to $196m after receiving £260m ($396m). Ludicrously, India which spent $45 billion on defence in 2014, received some £292m ($445m) of British taxpayer’s money in 2012.

In spite of all that my visit to Colonel Graeme Armour and his team at 1 Assault Group Royal Marines (1 AGRM) was all the more gratifying.  Rather than accept the decline implicit in government cuts the Royal Marines have instead championed innovation as a way to maintain their world-renowned reputation for military excellence.  Indeed, 1 AGRM’s new base struck me as the very epitome of the radical, elite future British force that London must fashion.  First, 1 AGRM is determined to maintain its warfighting edge.  Second, 1 AGRM is committed to acting as a core or hub force at the heart of coalitions. Third, 1 AGRM is predicated on deep jointness with the Army, the Royal Air Force and, indeed, across government and the wider civilian sector.  Fourth, 1 AGRM is agile enough to look to cheaper civilian solutions when the military bespoke solution is either too expensive or simply unavailable. 

Future conflict will either involve large, clunky state forces with immense destructive power or small, fanatical, non-state forces with possible access to immense destructive power. Therefore, the ability of agile, state forces to interdict and disrupt danger will be at a premium.  That is precisely the purpose of 1 AGRM and the wider Royal Marines.  Indeed, the Royal Marines are living proof that as London abandons mass in favour of elite manoeuvre by investing in Special Forces and specialised forces Britain can continue to ‘punch above its military weight’.

Such a vision implies an intelligent defence strategy that enshrines at its heart the concept of a British force able to act as an intelligent, command hub.  Such a role will be vital not just for Britain but also for the NATO alliance and indeed coalitions of allies and partners the world over.  However, if such a vision is to be realised London must abandon its short-termist tendency to use a small force as if it is still a big one. London continually hives off officers for this mission or that in support of Cameron’s gesture politics in place of sound strategy.  Consequently, all-important training and exercising are constantly being undermined.

On Thursday I witnessed a real effort to create a new thinking British force that is both agile and smart – a kind of military Turing Machine that whilst small is able to operate within and across the seven domains of future conflict – air, sea, land, space, cyber, information and knowledge. The Royal Marines are 351 years old this year.  Far from being a legacy force the Royal Marines are very much a force for the future.  My sincere hope is that those responsible in London can peer beyond the intellectual trenches of their strategic illiteracy and recognise just what a vital role the Royal Marines and indeed all of Britain’s future force must and can play in what is fast becoming a very dangerous world. A big, dangerous world that needs a big-thinking Britain, not Little Britain.

The motto of the Royal Marines is Per Mare, Per Terram – by sea, by land.  Let me paraphrase that – by sea, by land…and everywhere in between and beyond.  Her Majesty’s Royal Marines – making Britain disengagement proof!

Julian Lindley-French

US and China: In the Strategic Balance

Alphen, Netherlands. 2 June. The May 2015 Chinese Military Strategy highlights the greatest and fastest ever shift in the balance of military power from the liberal powers to the illiberal powers. Implicit in the strategy is a simple but clear message; now is not the right time to challenge the American presence in East Asia but given the shift taking place in the balance of power that day will come and when it comes China will act to exclude the US from China’s preferred sphere of influence.

The Strategy is clear. “On the issues concerning China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, some of its offshore neighbours take provocative actions and reinforce their military presence on China’s reefs and islands that they have illegally occupied. Some external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs; a tiny few maintain constant close-in air and sea surveillance and reconnaissance against China. It is thus a long-standing task for China to safeguard its maritime rights and interests”.

In 2014 China will (officially) spend $132bn (and probably far more).  On the face of it this figure represents a 12.2% increase on last year’s expenditure but in reality simply harmonises official and non-official defence expenditure.  It is the latest year-on-year double-digit growth in Chinese defence spending since 1989.  China’s strategic ally Russia is also engaged in a massive hike in its defence expenditure with 40% of all public investment now committed to Russia’s armed forces.  

Meanwhile, the US defence budget will fall from $500bn in 2015 to some $450bn in 2020.  The defence budgets of the European allies are still being raided to fund social security.  The mythical NATO target of 2% GDP on defence is being observed in the breach as demonstrated by British Government plans for an insane further £1bn of cuts to an already hollowed-out British military. 

Only the strategic denial and strategic illiteracy all too prevalent in European chancelleries these days can blind one to the implications of this shift – a major twenty-first century war – a Third World War - cannot be ruled out.  Read between the ‘peace’ and ‘co-operation’ lines in the Chinese strategy and the message is clear; under the rubric of “active defence” China is the coming power, and the US, Japan, South Korea and rest of the region and the world had better watch out.

The six key takeaways of the Strategy are as follows:

1.     1. The South China Sea is Chinese and China will do whatever it takes to ‘defend’ its sovereignty.  The Strategy refers to the Americans as an “external power” that meddles in “South China Sea affairs”; 

2.     2. At some point China will act to ‘resolve’ the “Taiwan issue” on Chinese terms.  “The Taiwan issue bears on China’s reunification and long-term development…reunification is an inevitable trend in the course of national rejuvenation”;

3.     3. China intends to create global-reach deployable military force.  “In response to the new requirement of safeguarding national security and development interests, China’s armed forces will work harder to create a favourable strategic posture with more emphasis on the employment of military forces and means…”

4.    4. China is preparing for an arms race with the Americans that it believes it can win over time.  The Strategy states, “In response to the new requirement arising from the worldwide RMA, the armed forces will pay close attention to the challenges in new security domains, and work hard to seize the strategic initiative in military competition”;

5.     5. The People’s Revolutionary Army and Navy is not a function of the Chinese state, but the Communist Party of China. Under Xi Jingping the Party has a) become far more strategic in its international ambitions; and b) combines a complex mix of ideology and nationalism; and

6.    6.  Future war is a distinct possibility and China intends to fight and win such a war.

The strategic balance between the US and China in Asia-Pacific is almost the mirror image of the challenge Britain faced when the Germans passed the 1898 and 1900 German Navy Laws.  On paper the British still looked vastly superior at the time.  However, Britain had a worldwide empire to protect whereas Imperial Germany could choose where and when to complicate Britain’s strategic calculus.  Britain had to respond.

Recently I chaired two American generals at a NATO meeting.  At one point I challenged them with a scenario. It is 2020 or perhaps more likely 2025. The cuts to European defence budgets have gone on apace.  The renewed cuts to the British defence budget have left the British Armed Forces emaciated, hollowed-out and dysfunctional, and the other NATO allies are little better. Suddenly a Russian-inspired crisis breaks out in the Baltic States as a snap Russian exercise starts to look like a prelude for the invasion of Estonia.  Simultaneously, China moves military forces to occupy several of its reclaimed reefs and islands whilst the People’s Liberation Navy threatens Taiwan.  The Americans find themselves in the worst of all strategic worlds, insufficiently strong in either Asia-Pacific or Europe and with allies that are more of a complication than support.

Given last month’s Chinese-Russian exercise in the Eastern Mediterranean such engineered crises-in-parallel cannot be ruled out. So, if you think I am exaggerating ask yourself this; do you think my strategic analysis wrong in fact or by assessment?  Or is it that the whole, dark big picture I paint is so dark, so Edvard Munch, you would rather not think about it?  Sadly, for most European leaders it is a crisis too far. They would prefer instead to appease a changing strategic reality than confront it.

US-China strategic relations are in the balance, but not yet on the brink. The world is a safer place when the West together is strong. It is about time our leaders remembered that.  However, a strategic clock is ticking, and it is Made in China. 

Julian Lindley-French

FIFA: Why Internationaldom is Corrupt

Geneva, Switzerland. 30 May. "For the laws of nature (as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and in sum, doing to others as we would be done to) of themselves without the terror of some power, to cause them to be observed are contrary to our natural passions that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like". "Leviathan" Thomas Hobbes.

Lac Leman is shiningly blue this morning, shimmering in the early summer sun with the reflection of light and land that is the allure of this beautiful place.  The massif of Mont Blanc is clear in the distance, recumbent like some enormous statue of Abraham Lincoln contemplating the very high, and the very low politics of life. I am back in Switzerland, the country of mountains, and Geneva, the city of peace and the seat of international organisations.  This is a home to me. Indeed, I have spent much of my life in this town over the years having worked with the UN, World Health Organisation, and for a short time with the International Olympic Committee in Lausanne.  Switzerland, more precisely Zurich, is also the lair of FIFA, denizen of the dark underworld of elite corruption of which the governing body of world football is master.  The gravy train of gravy trains that seems to run to a precise timetable of patronage, like some dark parody of the superb Swiss railway system that serves it and the rest of this meticulous country. However, FIFA is but an extreme example of an extreme system.  So, why are international organisations so prone to corruption? 

The wrong people in the wrong places: There are many very good people who work for   organisations such as FIFA, brim full of belief in 'the mission' and passionately determined to make the world a better place.  However, too often these good people are out in 'the field' doing the right thing far from the broking of power at which their dark masters excel.  Indeed, at the heights of such organisations one too often finds the politicians and self-serving elite attracted more by the prestige, the status and of course the money in which many international elites are mired than any love for any game.

The wrong people with the wrong beliefs: From my own experience I have seen how so often 'representatives' or 'delegates', or whatever they are called, are the wrong people from the wrong places with the wrong beliefs.  Often the sons and daughters of national elites (Blatter's daughter works for him), invariably the schemers (as Sepp Blatter once admitted himself to be), and inevitably the power-brokers, the strong men (normally men) who have scrambled to the top of the greasy pole and believe that private jets, police escorts, and uber-hotels are but the fruits of conquest.

A culture that promotes wrong-doing: Like all uber-elites the members thereof are very good at convincing themselves that the exchange of gifts, in its many mercurial and pecuniary forms, is not corruption at all but 'mere tokens of respect. They except such largesse not for themselves, you must understand, but on behalf of their 'people'.  It is a culture reinforced and perpetuated by an elite adept at speaking 'of the people', but from a height so far distant they might well be sitting atop Mont Blanc, or is that Mont Mammon? Olympians of deceit and self-deceit reinforced by a 'we are all in this together' culture that reinforces wrong-doing.

A system that fails the majority: Ultimately, it is the 'system' that permits the FIFAs of this world to drive the hubris-horsed, guilt-edged, cash-stuffed coach and horses through propriety.  The simple truth is that there is no real governance of such organisations and thus no real oversight or accountability.  The FIFAs exist in a form of anarchy in which the only 'law' is that of the elite jungle - take what you can, while you can, when you can...in the name of the game/people (delete as appropriate). 

The FIFAs of this world have become Saville Row suited 'playerds' adept at dribbling around propriety into the open but hidden goal of personal greed.  Audit commissions are set up that do not audit. Ethics committees are set up that are unethical.  'Transparency' is talked of but hidden behind a raft of lawyer-led secrecy, often in the name of 'protecting' commercial and organisational 'rights', when in fact it is merely to keep we the paying peasantry at far distance from the gilded elite and their gilded lifestyles.

Masked in the language of selflessness FIFA this week was super-selfishness at its very worst.  Americans (well done Yanks!) and the Swiss tried this week to provide at least some form of 'good governance' by indicting several of Blatter's lieutenants.  And yet, Blatter, as yet unindicted, was re-elected as FIFA President just two days later demonstrating yet again just how embedded self-interest is at the heart of elite internationaldom. 

Why does such vice continue?  Why is the cash of millions of taxpayers, supporters, customers siphoned off by such a self-serving few?  The reaction of Russia's President Putin was indicative (but by no means exclusive). The US indictments, he said, were sour grapes for losing the 2022 World Cup bid, yet another example of an America that wants to rule the world. THAT, is the real reason that the corrupt elites of internationaldom are able to impose such a burden of false entitlement, such a heavy tax of hubris, on the rest of us.  The states and the respective institutions in those states responsible for imposing some level off propriety on the elite are more concerned with fighting each other than ensuring proper behaviour.  Oversight and accountability exists there none.

There are many Blatters at rarified levels of internationaldom, consummate in the dark arts of survival politics, never 'responsible' for the corruption rampant around them, but at the very least utterly complicit by association and maintained in power by an ironclad system of patronage and partiality.  And, there will always be Blatters as long as there is no power, no Leviathan, to impose order above the state of nature in which the Blatters and their cohorts prosper.

The very first football club in the world Sheffield F.C. was formed in my home town in England in 1857.  It was a noble idea that led in time to what became called 'the beautiful game'. It is a game that no longer has anything to do with FIFA.  FIFA instead has mastered the oldest and ugliest game of all - vice, hubris and deceit.  It is time for Europeans and North Americans and all men and women of goodwill to play a different game and simply walk away from FIFA.

Julian Lindley-French

Brexit Watch: Resistance is Futile

Alphen, Netherlands. 27 May. This week the slavishly pro-EU newspaper The Guardian ran the headline, “Germany (and France) tighten their grip on Europe”.  The trekkies amongst you will recall Star Trek: the Next Generation back in the 1990s.  It was a very ‘European’ Star Trek in which a very English (Yorkshire actually) captain of the Starship Enterprise pretended to be French but was in fact far more Nelson than Bonaparte.  And, the really, really, really bad villains – the Borg – were quite clearly Swedish.  Imagine a spaceship full of alien Carl Bildts and you get the basic idea. The Borg were implacable – Jean-Luc Picard could not talk to them, reason with them, or debate with them.  All the Borg would do was to repeat the mantra, “resistance is futile’.  David Cameron must be feeling like that this morning and it is only Week One of his efforts to repatriate some very modest powers from Brussels to Britain.

Cameron has at least achieved one thing; he has flushed the Germans (and French) out into the political open.  It is now clear for all to see that the EU is not a political union at all.  It is a good old-fashioned empire with Germany (and France) at its core.  This was revealed by the deliciously-timed leak of secret German (and French) proposals to deepen Eurozone integration that had been agreed at a secret meeting in the margins of last week’s Riga Summit.  The leak was timed to coincide with Cameron’s meeting with Jean-Claude Juncker and thus to cause ‘Dave’ maximum embarrassment.  .

For months now I have been told by senior German and French politicians and officials that the seriously modest (some would say cosmetic) changes Cameron seeks would require a treaty change and for that reason such changes are impossible.  Britain, I was told, must take the EU as it is or leave it. Now Germany (and France) seeks to move far and fast towards deeper political and economic union and somehow such a move will not require treaty change.  What complete and utter hypocrisy.

The irony is that Germany (and France) is right. Back in 2010 at the height of the crisis I published a much-lambasted piece entitled “Britain must now leave the EU”.  My logic was irresistible.  If the Eurozone was to be saved much deeper political and economic integration would be required through the establishment of pan-EU institutions that in effect replaced national decision-making with some form of federal structure.  Indeed, that was precisely the intent of Jacques Delors when he helped dream up the Single Currency. When it comes to ‘ever closer union’ there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ crisis in the EU.  Britain, my logic ran, would never join the Euro and therefore would become a second class passenger on the EU train paying a first class fare.  Worse, Germany (and France) would never let Britain anywhere near the locomotive which they had firmly under their control. Therefore, for the sake of the Eurozone AND for Britain the British should leave….amicably.

It may be that the secret accord agreed in the margins between Germany (and France) is but the opening shot in the Brexit negotiation.  Behind the hubris the issues implicit in the Brexit debate are fundamental.  The British are questioning the very idea of ‘ever closer union’ sanctified at the heart of every European treaty since 1957.  They are challenging the very idea of European elitism and challenging the idea that the best form of governance is at the highest and thus most distant level of power. Above all, the British are doing what they have done for centuries; challenging hegemony in Europe.  The language may be different and indeed the institutional setting but implicit in the Brexit is the same impulse as drove the British to oppose Phillip II of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm and indeed Hitler. For the record I am NOT equating modern Germany with either the Kaiser or the Nazis but history is always eloquent in Europe.

If Berlin (and Paris) drive fair thinking Brits away by insisting upon deeper political integration at the EXPENSE of the world’s fifth largest economy, Europe’s second largest economy, and for all the defence-incompetence of the current government, Europe’s most powerful military actor (outside of Russia) then Britain WILL leave the EU.  And, no amount of bullying by multinational corporations will stop it.

Rather, a proper, adult negotiation must start that deliberately distinguishes itself from history.  Jean Claude Juncker has said he wants a “fair deal” for Britain.  That could work one of two ways.  If the EU is indeed an empire in all but name Germany and France could take the bold step of simply inviting Britain into its command club.  If, on the other hand, Berlin and Paris really are prepared to surrender deep sovereignty to create a real European Union then a new form or Single Market membership should be created.

“Resistance is futile” is not the message to send to the British right now.  However, the simple truth is that the EU has reached a crossroads, a bifurcation, a junction that can no longer be avoided. Equally, the British people should be under no illusion; even this modest attempt to repatriate powers represents a fundamental challenge to Europe’s power order.  My only hope is David Cameron, a man who routinely and deliberately confuses politics with strategy, also understands the strategic importance of the moment and indeed its significance.

Let’s talk.

Julian Lindley-French

George Osborne: Vladmir Putin’s Most Dangerous Ally

Alphen, Netherlands. 23 May. British Finance Minister George Osborne is Vladimir Putin’s most dangerous ally.  This week it was announced that Osborne is seeking ever deeper cuts to the British Armed Forces, as I warned in my latest book Little Britain: Twenty-First Century Strategy for a Middling European Power (www.amazon.co.uk). If the threat is carried out, and I have every reason to believe it will be, such egregious cuts to an already hollowed-out force will be the greatest act of strategic vandalism to Britain’s influence since the 1930s.  It is a decision that not only Britain will come to regret but also the US and all of Britain’s NATO allies. As for the Special Relationship with the US – it is over.  It is completely the wrong strategic message to send at completely the wrong time and demonstrates yet again the strategic illiteracy of both Cameron and Osborne. Russia’s President Putin must be laughing all the way to the Baltic States, or wherever it is next he is going to de-stabilise. 

The sad story of the Cameron Government(s) and its stewardship of British national strategy, and Britain’s defences since 2010 has been one of dissembling, deceit and outright lies.  In 2010 then Foreign Secretary William Hague said that there would be no strategic shrinkage under the Tories. Britain has been strategically-shrinking ever since.  Pledge abandoned. Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010 was presented as the big financial hit Britain’s armed forces would have to take to right the economy.  After 2015 the British defence budget, we were told, would see a real term 1% increase.   Pledge abandoned.  In September 2014 David Cameron badgered other NATO leaders for not committing to spending 2% GDP on defence.  British defence spending is about to fall in the next year from 2.07% to 1.88% GDP and fall again thereafter.  Pledge abandoned.  Cameron promised that the current size of the Army would be maintained at an already small 82,500 as part of Future Force 2020. Active consideration is now being given to an Army of 60,000.  Pledge about to be abandoned.  Worse, Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin has been charged with the task of trying to make the defence budget APPEAR as though it meets the NATO 2% GDP guideline.  Pledge about to be manipulated. 

The strategic-illiteracy of both Cameron and Osborne was brought home to me in a 22 April mail I received from an official in the Office of the Conservative Party Chairman which frankly insulted my intelligence.  The email boldly stated, “I can assure you that the Conservative Party is committed to supporting our Armed Forces and maintaining Britain’s position in the world”. Nonsense!  The email then reminded me that, “…no country in the world can invest in, maintain and support their Armed Forces while having a broken economy…” Yes, but Britain resides on this planet not on Mars, is meant to be a leading power, and bad people are doing bad things.

The missive then went on to offer a rosy future.  The “…Government plans to spend £163 billion on new equipment over the coming decade”, and the “…Government is committed to spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence…”  And then the sucker punch; “…with decisions on spending after the financial year 2015/16 to be determined in the next spending review”. In other words, ‘we told you more cuts were coming. Really we did’. However, the email left the best to last. “I would like to assure you that the UK remains a truly global military power…” What complete and utter tosh!  

However, the real ‘cruncher’ came in a small sub-phrase towards the end of the email when it suggested that all the planned investment, “…will keep Britain safe”.  It is a phrase Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, the safe-pair-of-hands defence minister charged by Cameron and Osborne with destroying, sorry cutting Britain’s armed forces.  First, it is not true.  Britain recently had to rely on allies to find two new Russian nuclear attack submarines seeking to enter Britain’s territorial waters.  Second, the true test of Britain’s defence is not the immediate defence of the island, but the fulfilment of its commitments to NATO allies, most notably the strategic reassurance, forward deterrence and collective defence of the three Baltic States. 

Indeed, although Britain is offering to act as a key element of NATO’s new Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) the coming cuts will emaciate the very forces designed to undertake such as role.  No wonder US forces call the Brits “the borrowers’. 

Let me be clear; implicit in the new round of planned defence cuts is a form of isolationism that passes for foreign and security policy under this Government and the final and irrevocable British retreat from strategic influence – Little Britain indeed.

Sadly, London is now committed to another Strategic Pretence and Insecurity Review and the appeasement of a rapidly-deteriorating strategic reality at a moment when illiberal power is gaining the upper hand.  Therefore, Osborne and Cameron’s strategic illiteracy is quite simply a recipe for disaster as they seek to abandon security to fund ‘prosperity’.  In the real world the one cannot exist without the other.

On my extensive travels of late Britain’s loss of influence in key chancelleries has become all too apparent to me.  Much of that is due to the butchering of Britain’s world-renowned armed forces which have long provided the hard power foundations for London’s soft power influence.

 

Frankly, I no longer believe any ‘commitment’ Cameron makes is worth any more than yesterday’s newsprint – be it on Europe, the economy or defence.

George Osborne – Vladimir Putin’s most dangerous ally.

Julian Lindley-French 

Riga’s Three Big Strategic Questions

Alphen, Netherlands. 22 May. In January 1941 at a desperate moment in World War Two President Roosevelt sent a handwritten note to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in which he quoted Longfellow. “Sail on, oh Ship of State, Sail on, oh union strong and great, Humanity with all its fears, With all the hope of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate”.  Roosevelt at the time was encouraging Britain to fight on alone against Nazi tyranny. As EU leaders today sit down in Latvia’s beautiful capital Riga they might muse on Longfellow’s poem. Indeed, although the centre-piece of today’s EU summit is the Eastern Partnership and the Union’s relationship with six well post-Soviet states at heart the discussion is really about three fundamental and interlocking strategic questions that will shape the future of Europe and the EU; the Russia Question, the British Question, and the Greek Question.  Implicit in all three questions is the biggest question of all; can the EU find a new balance between power, security, legitimacy and freedom.  

The Russia Question: Implicit in the EU’s struggle with Russia (for that is what it is) is a fundamental clash of ideas about international relations.  It is a clash that places all three Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – on the front-line of freedom.  It is also a clash between free sovereign choice essential to any community of nations and the imposition of influence implicit in the renewed sphere of influence Russia seeks. 

The British Question(s): There are in fact two questions implicit in the Brexit debate and they concern the EU’s relationship with power and people (it was ever thus).  Answering the power question is fairly straightforward.  If, for example, Germany and France want Britain to stay in the EU, then Berlin and Paris must finally afford London equal status within the Union.  In other words, non-Eurozone states (especially the most powerful non-Eurozone state) must no longer be treated as second-class EU citizens.  The people question is more complex.  The Brexit debate reflects two very different political cultures; Continental statism and protectionism versus Anglo-Saxon localism and openness.  Let me state for the record that I recognise the great work the EU does on my behalf. However, as a Lincoln democrat (note the small ‘d’) I believe firmly that power in a democracy should remain as close to the people as possible. Thus, I have long been concerned about the EU’s appalling and too oft glossed over democratic deficit and the growing distance between the EU institutions and me the people.  Britain’s fight is thus every thinking European’s fight against the over-concentration of unaccountable power in a few Euro-elite hands. 

The Greek Question:  The Greek question raises perhaps the biggest question of all; just how responsible are Europeans as Europeans responsible for each other’s debts, burdens, crises, and indeed security? Therefore, the Greek question is at one and the same time distinct and connected to the Russia and British questions. In effect Athens is challenging Germany (in particular) to answer a question Berlin has long-been dodging; what price leadership?  And, does German leadership of the Eurozone matter more to Berlin than a Grexit, which would mark a failure of German leadership?  Given the creative accounting the EU has used to give the impression Athens has met its debt-repayment schedule it is an argument that Syriza may actually be winning.  

If the EU is to find a new balance power, security, legitimacy and freedom implicit in Riga’s three big strategic questions many of the assumptions that have underpinned ‘Europe’ since at least the 1957 Treaty of Rome will need to be re-thought.  Clearly, a new balance needs to be found between the ‘ever closer union’ mantra of Brussels and the growing demand for political localism evident across much of Europe.  A new political balance would need to offer far more than the stale and much-abused idea of ‘subsidiarity’.   Equally, localism poses another vital question; can Europeans influence their world in the absence of political union? It is a moot point given the EU itself has no strategic culture worthy of the name and yet has successfully contributed to the strategic neutering of states like Britain and France.

Then there is the big legitimacy question. Can the European citizen ever be free if power is removed from democratically-elected national and regional legislatures and invested (often without the express permission of the citizen) in a distant, power-acquisitive political bureaucracy such as the European Commission?  Finally, both implicit and explicit in the challenge posed by Russia to the east and ISIS to the south is a further question. Can Europe resist aggression and subversion if it remains so split and disaggregated?

Therefore, today’s debate in Riga is really about the biggest question of all; whither Europe in the twenty-first century?  Humanity with all its fears, is indeed, hanging breathless on thy fate.  

Julian Lindley-French

NATO and New Ways of Warfare: Defeating Hybrid Threats

NATO and New Ways of Warfare: Defeating Hybrid Threats

 “True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous and conflicting information”.

Winston Spencer Churchill

Alphen, Netherlands. 19 May.  This blog is devoted to my report on a major NATO conference entitled “NATO and New Ways of Warfare: Defeating Hybrid Threats,” for which I acted as Rapporteur and which was held between 29-30 April at the NATO Defense College in Rome. Below are the core messages and policy recommendations from the report.  A full text of my report can be found at http://www.ndc.nato.int/news/current_news.php?icode=814. My sincere thanks to Major-General Bojarski, Commandant, NATO Defense College, Dr Daria Daniels-Skodnik, Dean and Dr Jeff Larsen, Director of the Research Divsion and his team for their help and support in the preparation of this report.

Core Messages

“NATO and the New Ways of Warfare; Defeating Hybrid Warfare” explored four main themes: NATO’s changing strategic environment, the scope and nature of hybrid threats; NATO’s pol-mil responses to hybrid warfare; and NATO’s military response to hybrid warfare. Hybrid warfare was defined as the denial of and defection from standard norms and principles of international relations in pursuit of narrow interests.  Contemporary hybrid warfare is strategic in its ambition and employs a mix of disinformation, destabilising gambits and intimidation to force an adversary to comply with those interests.  The essential purpose of hybrid warfare is to keep an adversary politically, militarily and societally off-balance.

Whilst much of the debate concerned the military aspects of hybrid warfare the need for a tight pol-mil relationship was seen as the essential pre-requisite for effective Allied engagement of the threats posed.  Indeed, a fundamental issue at debate concerned how to create devolved political command authority in the early phase of a crisis to ensure that military high readiness is matched by the exercise of political agility in response to hybrid threats. Critically, whilst the debate centred on the threats posed by Russia to NATO Strategic Direction East, and by ISIS to NATO Strategic Direction South, such threats and risks were seen as reflective of a more conflictual world in which power is shifting at pace away from the Western liberal states.  

Hybrid warfare exploits political seams within the Alliance and societal seams within open societies.  Therefore, if NATO is to successfully adapt and adjust strategy, capability and resiliency it is vital that such threats are defined and properly understood and thereafter early indicators established as effective conventional and nuclear deterrence remains the first order principle of Alliance action and high readiness (and high responsiveness).  

However, in the event deterrence fails NATO must have the capacity and capability to fight war.  That in turn entails the strengthening of societal cohesion within NATO nations, the forging of close links between the civilian and military aspects of security and defence. The future NATO must be built on good intelligence, knowledge, robust command and control, rapid response allied to the capacity to “surge to mass” via a “big, agile reserve”.

Policy Recommendations:

NATO’s policy response to strategic hybrid warfare will in effect require reflection on and adaptation of the 2010 NATO Strategic Concept in light of the lessons of hybrid warfare.  Effective strategic communications (Stratcom) will be vital both for home audiences and the strategic key leader engagement implicit in strategic hybrid warfare. Such an adaptation and the strategic realignment of the Alliance would in effect reflect a mid-term (five year) policy review of the Strategic Concept for accuracy, credibility and contemporary relevance given the challenges posed by hybrid warfare.  Such realignment would need to incorporate the following elements:

Prevention

Better understand strategic hybrid threats: NATO must establish a proper distinction between and granulated understanding of the threats posed to the Alliance from Strategic Direction East and Strategic Direction South.  

Craft a hybrid warfare strategy: As part of NATO’s strategic realignment a NATO hybrid warfare strategy should then be considered and prepared by the Military Committee. 

Establish adapted early indicators: Adapted early indicators must be established to enable more agile response to hybrid threats, especially in the early phase of the conflict cycle.  This will require a new relationship between closed and open source information and better exploitation of the Alliance of knowledge communities.

Establish a Stratcom policy: Effective strategic communications is part of Alliance defence against hybrid warfare and effective messaging is central to strategic communications. A NATO Stratcom policy should be crafted to counter the narrative at the heart of an adversary’s conduct of hybrid warfare.  Particular emphasis should be placed on NATO-EU synergy and tight joint messaging thereafter.

Adaptation

Reconsider information management: To defeat hybrid warfare NATO must beat the adversary to the message. That will require reconsideration of the use of classified information, a move to ensure the early release of mission critical information, and the relationship between classified and unclassified information.

Adapt nuclear posture: NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture, readiness and messaging also needs to be re-considered in response to Moscow’s heightened use of nuclear weapons as part of hybrid warfare.  The Alliance message must be clear: Moscow must be under no illusion. The Alliance still understands the role of nuclear weapons in deterrence and Russia will never achieve escalation dominance. Deterrence will thus be enhanced by a heightened role for the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) and a demonstration that since the end of the Cold War NATO has lost neither the knowledge nor understanding of the role of nuclear weapons in deterrence.

Close the conventional/nuclear seam: NATO’s military preparedness and readiness will also need to include exercising and training for the transition from conventional operations to nuclear operations. Specifically, NATO must respond to Russia’s stated military doctrine that seeks to use nuclear weapons to “de-escalate crises” in Moscow’s favour.

Adapt exercising and training: Allied Command Transformation (ACT) must be given a clear tasking to develop exercise and training programmes to reflect recent developments in and reactions to hybrid warfare.  Specifically, NATO needs to make far better use of lessons identified and lessons learned from recent campaigns and incorporate them in a ‘scientific’ development programme in which the future force (and forces) are built via a series of linked exercises and defence education initiatives that test the unknown rather than confirm the already known.  The two joint force commands and the high readiness force headquarters would have a key role to play in the development of such a programme.

Re-consider the role of Partners: A specific study is needed on the role of Partners in a NATO hybrid warfare strategy.  Such a study would re-consider partnership mechanisms in light of hybrid warfare, such as the Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Co-operation Initiative, Partners across the Globe and Partnership for Peace.

Enhance Resiliency: A NATO hybrid warfare strategy would need to properly consider how best to enhance resiliency of Allies and Partners. A particular focus would be needed on the protection of critical national information and infrastructures and consequence management.  A useful first-step could be an analysis of key vulnerabilities to better understand how individual NATO nations could be undermined by hybrid warfare.  Such an analysis would include a better understanding of how minorities are susceptible to manipulation; the vulnerability of the media space to external saturation; how the lack of a binding national narrative could be exploited; and how electorates could be alienated from leadership during a hybrid warfare-inspired crisis, particularly through elite corruption.

Engagement

Enhance military responsiveness and agility: Hybrid warfare seeks to exploit the seams between collective defence, crisis management and co-operative security. Therefore, twenty-first century Alliance collective defence will also require a mix of coalitions and Alliance-wide action.  The capacity for the rapid force generation of coalitions of allies and partners, supported by effective command and control at short notice will be central to NATO’s military responsiveness and agility.

Establish credible forward deterrence: In countering hybrid warfare forward deterrence is as important as forward defence.  Indeed, NATO must not be forced to trade space for time in the event of a full-scale war of which hybrid warfare is but a prelude.  Critically, the Alliance needs to consider how best to force an adversary and its forces off-balance, both politically and militarily.  Critically, NATO forces must be aim to force an adversary onto the defensive via a counter hybrid warfare strategy that imposes the unexpected on decision-makers.  Such a posture will require demonstrable reassurance and readiness.

Reconceive NATO forces: In support of forward deterrence combined and ‘deep joint’ Alliance forces must be able to operate effectively in and across the seven domains of strategic hybrid warfare – air, sea, land, space, cyber, information and knowledge.  Critically, the military relationship between NATO’s first responder forces and heavier, follow-on forces many of which may be deployed outside of Europe will need to be worked up.

Implement Wales in full: The September 2014 NATO Wales Summit was a benchmark summit; much like London in 1991 and Washington in 1999 and must be implemented in full.  Therefore, NATO political guidance must establish credible capability requirements for twenty-first collective defence that generates a new kind of ‘defence’ through a mix of advanced deployable forces, cyber-defence and missile defence.  Strategic hybrid warfare is not simply an alternative form of warfare; it is the new way of warfare.

Julian Lindley-French