Marius Montius Caesar: A Latter Day Shakespearean Tragedy?

Rome, Imperial Capital. 19 March, 2012 AD. “Beware the ides of March” a Soothsayer warns Caesar. Marius Montius Caesar is made Dictator of the Roman Republic to save the Republic in the name of the Republic. Critical is the support Caesar enjoys from the heads of the two leading families of the Empire, Angela Portia Merkela, formerly of the Germanic tribe, and Nicholatus Minimus Sarkozius, formerly of Gaul. Silvius Brutus Berlisconius, who has been deposed by Marius as leader of the corrupt, bloated Senate, plots his revenge. He utters bitterly, “I do fear the people choose Caesar for their king. I was born free as Caesar, and this man is now become a god”. The Roman die is cast.

Brutus Berlisconius, one time friend of Caesar, is all too conscious that his electoral chances depend on his playing to the fears of the Plebs now gathering in their uneasy impotence on the Appenine Hill across the deep valley of the Circo Massimo from the Capitoline where this great drama is unfolding. Caesar, gripped by the acute vulnerability of his position, has a vision of the fate that awaits him. Fatalistically he accepts that death “will come when it will come”. So, charged with his duty to save Rome from itself Caesar goes to the Senate to explain his plan.

Caesar is slain. As Brutus Berlisconius plunges a bloody dagger into Caesar the Dictator utters his final words, “Et tu, Brute”. “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears”, cries Brutus Berlisconius, “I come here to bury Caesar, not to praise him”. Romans, he warns, would have been slaves under Caesar, before he departs to his luxury island for a party.

Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti is no Julius Caesar. He is a good man in a terrible position at a terrible time. However, his political (hopefully not personal) fate could be similar if he does not succeed in what is an almost impossible task – to drive down Italy’s public debt. As I walk the streets of this magnificent city and talk to Romans the mood here is one of uneasy calm.  The Italian debt hangs in the air like a gathering Shakespearean storm. The atmosphere is unworldly; a heavy calm before a cataclysmic social and political upheaval. Either Hannibal will bypass the city or the market barbarians will storm the ramparts. Cannae or Carthage?

My sources tell me that Monti sees himself being in power for no longer than one more year. He believes that not only will elections be necessary by then but that he and his technocratic government will have done all they can to stabilise Italy’s finances. If truth be told a year is probably nothing like enough time. Italy is a country wedded to debt. And, just like Caesar before him it was the failure of a corrupt political class that put the Republic in danger. Indeed, Italy’s politicians have traditionally survived on a system of patronage which has encouraged over-mighty subjects and special interest groups. Europe and the Eurozone was seen by many of them merely as a means to extend patronage via the cheap money that the Euro afforded. Indeed, the moment France and Germany broke the Euro’s stringent rules it became open season for many in the Italian elite to use government to over-spend.

Therefore, Monti faces a terrible choice.  If he does indeed go in a year or so and hands power back to a political class that shows little or no sign that it will mend its ways financial oblivion will beckon and Monti will be accused of a dereliction of duty. However, if Monti hangs onto power indefinitely he will be accused of being a latter day Caesar hell bent on destroying the ancient virtues and freedoms of the Republic. Italy, far more than Greece, will be the true test as to whether or not the Euro’s empire can survive the assault by the market barbarians. And, of course, Brutus Berlisconius waits in the wings.

Italy is a serious country with serious people who have deserved far better from their past leaders. In my years living in Florence, speaking the language, studying the place and the people I was constantly struck by the daily battle that was fought out between the state and the people. It is a battle that continues apace.  It is now one in which the future of Europe not just Italy is at stake. The Italian people deserve our support…and our vigilance.

As for the Eurozone crisis, the ides of March may indeed have come.  “Ay, Caesar, but not gone”.

Julius Livy-Cicerench

Obameron versus Merkozy

A NATO military base somewhere in deepest England. 14 March. I could tell you where I am but then I would have to kill you. I have just spent the day annoying NATO generals, the majority of whom are British, which is one of my purposes in life. Much of the day was spent by the British explaining the debt-fuelled contradiction that is likely to be Britain’s future defence strategy – to remain close to America whilst relying more on NATO. On the face of it such military parochialism might seem a world away from the Obameron high politics/grand strategy taking place in Washington.  It is not. Let me start with the high politics first.

Officially Obameron will consider the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and of course the joint position the US and UK will likely adopt at May’s NATO Chicago Summit. It is also clear from the red carpet treatment PR-Meister Dave is receiving in DC that the Americans again see a wider significance to the ‘special (yawn) relationship’. After many months of the Merkozy duarchy assuming the right to speak for Europe Obameron are in effect formalising the new fault-line in the transatlantic relationship. Berlin and Paris be warned; Obameron will henceforth contest the European strategic piece with Merkozy.

Those of you out there who react to this statement with bewilderment and object to my suggestion that the German Chancellor and French President could be acting out of anything but the most altruistic of impulses have something of a point...but only something. The Eurozone crisis needed leaders and Germany and France had to act. However, like any power capital Berlin and Paris are complex places with a range of complex political and strategic motives.  A clear sub-text from the start of the duarchy has been the establishment of a precedent for the future leadership of Europe by Berlin and Paris. It is leadership that neither America nor Britain will ever accept.

Many continental Europeans simply do not understand this and they need to. ‘Liberty’, as defined by national parliamentary democracies exercising sovereign will, was precisely what the Americans and British fought for together and died together in their millions in two world wars. The ‘political’ system on offer today for future Europe is not parliamentary democracy. For one I desperately do not want my country to leave the European Union. However, the plutocratic/technocratic path the EU has now taken threatens a shared Anglo-American heritage in which I also passionately believe to make Europe safe for democracy.

This brings me back to my meeting here in xxxxxxxxxx. The fatal flaw in London’s logic is to equate NATO with the US. NATO is increasingly a European organisation in which the Americans have at best a waning passing interest. To rely more on NATO means the British relying more on continental Europeans. Not only are the defence budgets of said Europeans in meltdown, but even more importantly so is the political will to use legitimate force and crucially Britain's at best meagre political influence in Europe is also in meltdown.

The contradiction in British defence policy is thus clear.  On the one hand the British want to save money by relying more heavily on a NATO command structure in which the US has little interest and on European partners that either do not want to act with Britain or simply cannot.    On the other hand the British want to stay close to the Americans militarily even though that will cost a lot of money, especially so as the Americans are about to make the final break from a land-centric defence strategy with Europe at its core to a maritime strategy which does not at all have Europe at its core.

Is there a way out?  Possibly, but it is a long shot. First, Chicago must reaffirm the principles of national parliamentary sovereignty the defence of which is NATO’s core mission. Second, Britain, France and Germany must be seen to come together and reaffirm the idea of a united Europe established firmly on the principles of national parliamentary sovereignty. Third, the very practical defence pact that France and Britain share must be expanded to include Germany so that Europe’s new strategic triangle could then begin Europe’s long road back to strategic seriousness.

There is one thing that all parties to this schism need to understand fast; the stakes are very high indeed.  Fail and Obameron versus Merkozy could be just the beginning of a strategic realignment that would in time render the Channel wider than the Atlantic.

Mind you what could come next does not sound at all appealing – Romron versus Merkholl?  Heaven forbid Merkland-e!

Julian Lindley-French

Tough but Correct Call Prime Minister!

Alphen, the Netherlands. 12 March.  The 7 March attempt to free Briton Mr Chris McManus and Italian Mr Franco Lamonilara from Nigerian kidnappers by Britain's Special Boat Service (SBS) and Royal Marine Commandos British ended in failure.  Tragically, Mr McManus and Mr Lamolinara were killed by their captors.  The Italian President has attacked London for launching the raid without informing Rome prior to the operation. 

Regular readers of this blog know that I have my issues with what I regard as Prime Minister Cameron's lack of strategic vision and his tendency to cave-in to London's supine officials at key strategic moments, particularly over Europe.  Not on this occasion.  The 'go' decision took real steel.  These operations are always intelligence-led and sometimes action must be taken at very short notice.  Moreover, there are a thousand things that can go wrong in what are by definition extremely high-risk operations.

Of course I deeply regret the killing of the two men and my heart go out to their families.  However, there is a deeper point; once again British forces put their own lives on the line to save the lives of others.  I can understand Italy's frustration as London and Rome are close.  However, the Italian Government may also wish to reflect on the dangers British and Nigerian forces were willing to face to free their citizen.

There is also a wider point that informs the future of Britain's armed forces.  The very fact that Britain could put a significant force of very specialised troops into Nigeria is a significant precedent that must be factored into the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review.  Britain's twenty-first century military must be built around a small but very specialised professional army, deliverable and protectable by small but global reach naval and air forces of the highest quality centred on the two new super-carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. 

To realise such an 'influence force' Britain's political class will have to lift itself out of the mire, nay the cult, of self-imposed decline into which it has fallen.  Indeed, the decline management culture that pervades Westminster and Whitehall was reflected in last week's House of Commons review of the National Security Strategy in what was otherwise a solid report.  As per usual the politicians simply accepted Britain's decline as a fait accompli.  Yes, it is true Britain will have to confront a twenty-first century world in which new actors emerge.  However, London's political class routinely exaggerate the strength of others, and routinely exaggerate the weakness of Britain.  This is supported an elite bureaucratic class that too often questions Britain's right to strategic influence and to keen to appease reality.

Quality is the key to Britain's future strategic influence; quality of thought, quality of strategy, quality of action and quality of force.    

Thank you for making a tough but correct call Prime Minister.  I am sorry it did not work out as planned.

Julian Lindley-French

.

Is it Time for a Nuclear Mutual Assistance Pact?

Alphen, the Netherlands. 9 March. Is it time for a Nuclear Mutual Assistance Pact? Yesterday’s ‘P5+1’ statement urging Iran to enter into “serious dialogue” on its nuclear programme “without preconditions” suggests the danger of nuclear proliferation is now so real that something new is needed to prevent it. The statement is also an important precedent. The very fact that the five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States have come together with Germany demonstrates the gravity of the growing crisis. As British Foreign Secretary William Hague said, if Iran gets nukes others will follow.

Israel and Iran are clearly on collision course. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a Tuesday night US speech made it clear that time is running out and Israel will “…not live in the shadow of annihilation”. Netanyahu was to some extent exaggerating for effect and talking to a particular audience, but Israeli perceptions cannot be ignored. Indeed they are central to this crisis. A Nuclear Mutual Assistance Pact would reinforce Chapter Seven of the UN Charter which allows for self-defence by authorising the P5 to act in the event of a nuclear threat including the use of military force if the threat was imminent. The immediate purpose of the pact would be to stabilise the Middle East. As Hague implies if Iran gets the bomb Saudi Arabia, possibly the Gulf States and others will doubtless follow.

However, the pact would also be designed to reinforce the failing 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty. The first atomic bomb was exploded in 1945 and the first modern missiles flew in 1944. Such is the pace and scale of technology creep that nothing that old can be kept forever in a locked treaty box, especially when a treaty reflect a past age. Sooner or later the bomb is going to spread well beyond the current eight nuclear powers. Indeed, an uncomfortable truth is that sooner or later the world is probably going to have to find a way to properly police a multi-multipolar nuclear reality.

Under the pact the five nuclear UN Security Council Permanent Members would immediately and collectively threaten an offender with overwhelming military action and render humanitarian assistance in the event of an attack. The pact could be established as an addendum to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which was extended indefinitely in 1995. The pact would also authorise the establishment of criteria for ever-tougher sanctions for unauthorised possession of nuclear weapons. Of course, sooner or later consideration would also have to be given to what President Obama called in his 2009 Prague Speech “Global Zero”, or general and comprehensive nuclear disarmament. However, that would be then, not now.

Part of the problem is that facing up to the reality of nuclear proliferation is simply too uncomfortable for leaders and publics. They simply want the problem to go away. Indeed, there are even people out there who have convinced themselves that Tehran’s ambitions go no further than the peaceful exploitation of nuclear power. That is the latter day equivalent of holocaust-denial.

If action is not taken the threat that Israel launches an air-strike against Iran will grow. At some point Israel may judge the threat so great and the chance that conventional air strikes do the job so unlikely that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran becomes an option. Israel possesses an estimated 250 nuclear warheads at Dimona. Remember, there is an extra dimension to Iran-Israel relations that makes this particular nuclear stand-off particularly dangerous. Alternatively, the Western powers offer an exclusive nuclear mutual assistance pact solely to Israel with all that entails for the Middle East...and the transatlantic relationship.

The price of proliferation will also strike closer to home. The very fact of a world with multiple nuclear powers would undermine the ability of the great power to shape events. Indeed, for all the fancy conventional forces the Americans, Chinese, Russians and their like may in future possess the whole point of nuclear weapons is that they equalise and neutralise power. The only way to stop the drift towards a very dangerous nuclear world would be to make the possession of them hideously costly and the use of them utterly ruinous.

The simple truth is that like it or not we are indeed entering a new nuclear age. And whatever the situation in the Middle East we need to start thinking about new control, verification and if necessary punishment regimes for those states that might contemplate using nuclear weapons. The nuclear genie is not yet out of the bottle but the lid is getting looser by the day.

We need to act now.

Julian Lindley-French

In Honour of Britain's Afghan Fallen

Alphen, the Netherlands. 7 March. Today it was announced that six British soldiers serving in Afghanistan are missing presumed dead. Five of them were serving with The Yorkshire Regiment, my own county regiment, and the other with the Duke of Lancaster Regiment. My heart goes out to the family and friends of the fallen. They were part of a sustained British effort that stands second only to that of the United States in its commitment to bring peace to the people of Afghanistan. Today’s sorry tally takes the number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan past the 400 mark since British troops first deployed in 2001.

In the House of Commons today Prime Minister Cameron paid fitting tribute to the men. He also re-iterated the determination of his government to maintain the commitment of British troops to Afghanistan prior to the planned drawdown of combat forces at the end of 2014.  Prime Minister Cameron also reaffirmed the three reasons for the continued presence of British troops in Afghanistan: to prevent the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan; to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming an ungoverned space for terrorists to exploit; to keep violent Islamism at strategic distance from Britain.

My support for Britain’s troops is absolute. For much of the past ten years I have worked on Afghanistan, I have been to Afghanistan and I believe passionately that Afghans be afforded every opportunity to live at peace with each other and their neighbours. However, in honour of my fellow Yorkshiremen I must warn the Prime Minister that he needs to make a much better case for the continued sacrifice of our young men. He can no longer continue to trot out now tired mantras to justify the sacrifice.

First, the claim that Britain’s troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan to keep Islamism at strategic distance is hard for the British people to accept when in the past decade over a million people have been permitted to enter the United Kingdom from some of the most conservative parts of Islam. Second, Afghan President Karzai yesterday welcomed “guidelines for women” from the Ulema Council which he funds. Comprised of senior clerics the Council demanded that women must henceforth wear headscarves, be permitted in public only if escorted by male family members, and forbidden to work alongside men. If brought to pass such restrictions would undo much of the progress made since 2001. The British people will not understand the sacrifice of British forces if all they are doing is keeping Afghanistan warm for the post-2014 return of the Taliban. Third, my sources tell me that President Karzai and much of his senior cohort are preparing for a swift exit from Afghanistan should things turn ugly. It needs to be made very clear to President Karzai that he can expect no taxpayer-funded safe haven in London. There can be no Mayfair apartment if he fails.

Britain’s armed forces, working within NATO and with American and other allies, have achieved much this past decade. Unfortunately, however effective a military campaign, whatever the number of Afghan soldiers and policemen trained, it will be as nothing if the political strategy fails. Indeed, the only purpose of military campaigns is to create the conditions for a just political solution. The Talibanisation/Pashtunisation of the Afghan Government would dishonour our troops. 

Next week in Washington Prime Minister Cameron will meet President Obama. There would be no better tribute to the fallen of both America and Britain than for President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron to re-state clearly their political strategy between now and end 2014. Specifically, we the British people need an urgent answer to two simple questions; what is the specific political objective you seek in Afghanistan and how do you intend to achieve it? The answer is now not at all clear. You need to make it so.

In honour of our Yorkshire fallen – God’s Own County!

Requiescat in Pace.

Julian Lindley-French

Refused Bail: Christopher Tappin Update

Alphen, the Netherlands. 6 March.  65 year old English businessman Christopher Tappin has been denied bail by a US court because he apparently poses "a flight risk".  Mr Tappin, who was extradited from England to the US under an unbalanced extradition that blatantly favours Americans, is to be tried for allegedly selling batteries that could be used to fire Iranian missiles. He denies the charges.  Not surprisingly Mr Tappin's wife Elaine believes the decision by Judge Robert Castaneda to keep him in custody as "heartbreaking" and an "outrage".   The judge had agreed that Mr Tappin could be monitored if released, but still decided to refuse bail citing what he described as discrepancies in Mr Tappin's financial statement. 

Sadly, the British Government is doing nothing to ease Mr Tappin's plight which is fast bordering on the cruel and inhumane punishment banned under English law.    This is not least because no date has been set for his trial, he is solitary in confinement, allowed out from his cell only one hour in twenty four, denied reading materials and forced to sleep with lights shining day and night.  He has also been refused effective communication with his defence team to prepare for his trial. 

For those of us who have been life-long supporters of the United States, believers in American justice and who have defended America from its many critics Mr Tappin's appalling treatment must force a re-consideration. London feebly suggests that the matter is now entirely for the US courts to decide.  Apparently, the human rights of English people abroad is no longer of interest to Her Majesty's Government.  Indeed, it now seems Mr Tappin is being unjustly punished by the Americans precisely to make a point that in the US we English are seen as second-class citizens.  There is at least some consistency in this because we English are also seen as second-class citizens in Britain too these days.

Julian Lindley-French 

Big Weekend for the Big Brothers

Alphen, the Netherlands. 5 March. This has been a big weekend for the big brothers. President-elect Vladimir Putin somehow managed to get himself ‘re-elected’ in Russia. He should next time try to become EU President as the system is by and large the same. China announced a paltry 11.2% increase in defence expenditure, whilst at the same time highlighting ‘disappointing’ economic growth figures of 7.2%, the lowest ‘for decades’, which is never a good combination. Meanwhile, President Obama, speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), said that the US “will not hesitate” to use force to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, but says diplomacy could still succeed. All three events imply a rocky road ahead.

What is also interesting is that all three events take place against a backdrop of change at the top of world affairs. Indeed, four of the five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council are either in the midst of election campaigns (France and the US), or handover campaigns (China and Russia). The only one that is not is Britain. However, Britain today cuts a rather forlorn figure of a Permanent Member with a government in London patently running out of both ideas and steam leading a country that due to self-inflicted decline is losing influence by the day - both in Europe and the wider world. France is locked into the Eurozone crisis and increasingly a surrogate of Germany, Europe’s only real power of influence, albeit power of a distinctly soft nature. So, what does this moment of change imply for world peace?

President Putin claims to have won over 64% of the vote this weekend but amidst allegations of vote rigging the figure is probably nearer 50%. It is clear that Putin has lost a lot of support across Russia and his term could face significant challenge from an increasingly vocal big city opposition. Like many a previous Russian leader he seems to be leaning towards nationalism as a means to shore up his regime. Two weeks ago Putin wrote that “For Russia to feel secure and for our partners to listen carefully to what our country has to say,” Russia will about $775 billion by 2022 for new armaments and a more professional military. That will be a heavy burden for the Russian economy to bear but the intent is clear.

Beijing’s announcement this weekend that it will grow the Chinese defence budget by 11.2% in 2012 (although slightly lower than the 12.7% in 2011) is but the latest double digit increase. Indeed, China has been growing its military at that rate since 1989 and the official figures are probably ‘conservative’. What makes this year’s increase interesting is the timing. It is likely that Vice-President Xi Jingping will succeed President Hu Jintao when he steps down in 2013. Xi is known to be close to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and his accession will doubtless strengthen the influence of the forces and with it their sustained access to investment. Worryingly, during Xi’s recent visit to Washington the Americans tried to interest him in new military-to-military exchanges. They were met with a flat ‘no’.

President Obama’s weekend warning to Iran comes in the wake of Israeli President Shimon Peres saying that Iran “was a danger to the world”. What makes Iran particularly worrying is that Teheran is also in the midst of what passes for democracy in the Islamic Republic and with it an implied power struggle between the clerical elite and radical elements around President Ahmadinejad. Worried that Israel might be tempted to launch a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear sites President Obama said, “Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment – I have a policy to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon”.  Cue confrontation - soon!

It is not simply leaderships that are changing (well, sort of). Russia, China and the US are also changing their respective strategic orientations. Russia is increasingly looking east towards China.  Expect and increase in the Kremlin’s anti-Western rumblings and tensions in the High North and with Ukraine over the coming years, not to mention another stand-off with NATO as it tries to update its collective defence structure.

China is beginning to move beyond the Strategic Harmony which has driven its growth-friendly foreign policy for many years. Beijing is also beginning to use the wealth it has generated to begin to assert itself both in its own neighbourhood and beyond. With the PLA now ascendant one can expect a more techy relationship between Beijing and its neighbours and, of course, with Washington.

For Washinton real difficulties lay ahead.  The US is drawing down both its global military and diplomatic footprint even as forced obligations expand. Rather like Britain in the 1930s, which could no longer defend its Eastern Empire, the Suez Canal and the home base, Washington is being forced into hard choices. Implicit in both Beijing’s and Moscow’s defence hikes are efforts to make America’s choices just that bit harder. Were they up to the task the UN’s two other Permanent Members, Britain and France, would realise the game that is afoot and re-discover true strategy. It is vital London and Paris assist the US by exploring ways to take the pressure of an over-stretched America by leading efforts to maintain stability in Europe and its neighbourhood.

Tragically, it will also mean that 'in-between' places such as Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, together with a host of others, will see little concerted humanitarian action as big brother politics again paralyses the United Nations.

Julian Lindley-French