Montenegro: Why We Must Keep the Door Open

Budva, Montenegro. 7 June. Graham Greene once wrote, “There is always one moment when the door opens and lets the future in”. Here in beautiful Budva the Adriatic laps gently on the beach below my balcony and then stretches away like a carpet of crushed opal with the sun leaping from shard to shard. I have just spent the past two days at the excellent ‘2BS’ (To Be Secure) conference as a guest of the Atlantic Council of Montenegro along with ministers and leaders from across the Western Balkans. In the wake of NATO’s Chicago summit the most profound of questions has hung in the air; will the Western Balkans be given sanctuary within NATO and eventually the EU before the region slides back into dangerous instability?

It is all too easy to slot the Western Balkans into the ‘job done’ box of what now seems an endless conveyor belt of crises. That would be a mistake. As I write the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation has just concluded with China, Russia (and observer Iran) warning the West to keep its hands off the Syrian tragedy just as another massacre is denied by Assad and his cronies. Closer to home Prime Minister Cameron is meeting Chancellor Merkel to discuss the Eurozone crisis and Spain’s imminent banking crash.

At Chicago the one commitment of any substance was the determination to move rapidly towards NATO membership for at least three of the successor states of Yugoslavia; Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia ('Former Yugoslav Republic thereof to keep you Greeks out there happy, although the argument over a name demonstrates the pettiness of many Balkan contentions) and Montenegro. Serbia is of course key to stability in the region and unless Belgrade is happy (something Serbs tend to find hard) the Western Balkans will never be truly stable. 

However, incorporating countries from the region will not come without cost. First, the western Balkans will need financial support for many years to come at a time when most of Europe is mired in dangerous debt. Second, the region still faces a profound challenge from organised crime that too often spills over to blight the rest of Europe. Third, Russia is still prickly about aspirations from countries in the region to join NATO in particular. Fourth, several of the causes of past conflict remain not only unresolved but bubble just below a dormant political volcano that is by no means extinct – Republika Srpska remains unreconciled with Bosnia-Herzegovina and the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo is always a flashpoint. As one senior Montenegran said to me, “true peace will take generations to achieve”.

The bottom-line is this; on balance (and international politics is always ‘on balance’) I have been convinced that NATO’s Open Door must be honoured and quickly. Indeed, with Greece facing possible exit from the Euro there is a very real chance that the instability traditionally associated with this region will spread across the rest of the Balkans. Above all, with Syria burning what hope can we in Europe possibly offer those struggling for the respect of human rights in North Africa, the Middle East or elsewhere if we cannot guarantee stability in this corner of Europe?

There is no question that the Eurozone crisis represents the greatest security threat of the age with Iranian nukes not far behind. However, the danger that the Western Balkans slides back towards war is also very real posing a threat to the stability of Europe at a time of particular instability. The Western Balkans cannot be brushed under some metaphorical (and mythical) security carpet by capitals otherwise engaged.

The next NATO enlargement will take the Alliance into the heart of Balkan instability and must therefore be a model enlargement. Montenegro is small enough and committed enough to make that embrace work. With a population of only 650,000 and having adopted the Euro as the national currency there is no duplicity – either open or subtle – about Montenegro’s ambitions and leanings. Be it security sector reform or democratic control over armed forces Montenegro can show the way for much of the rest of the Western Balkans so that Europe is never again blighted by the obscenity that was the War of Yugoslav Succession in the 1990s.

Europe will not be able to do it alone and the open support of the United States at this conference in the elegant and impressive shape of the US Ambassador Sue Brown was both welcome and necessary. For all the talk of America’s ‘pivot’ to Asia-Pacific it is clear Washington is committed to the Western Balkans and will need to remain so.

Graham Greene was right; this is indeed the moment when NATO’s open door can shine a light on a Balkan future that offers hope not just in Europe but much of the world beyond. In time another door might lead into the EU. Montenegro holds a mirror up to us all and the image I see is not a pretty one.

We must not close the door on Montenegro.

Julian Lindley-French

A Light in the Mire

Alphen, the Netherlands, 3 June. Edward Gibbon, in his masterly Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire wrote ,“all that is human must retrograde if it does not advance”. Having just come back from a two day NATO meeting in the Eternal City one is beginning to see that in the fabric of the people and the place. The fear and frustration is almost palpable. “Why don’t they do something?”, one Roman friend said to me looking skyward to imply a vague vision of our Dear Leaders as Roman Gods. “They are doing something”, I replied. “They are re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic”. And, if he listened ever so carefully he might hear something else; the acoustic perfume of a distant violin wafting its way from nearby Anzio as Nero fiddles anew.

Our absent without leave leaders last week missed yet another chance to put in place the ten year, multi-billion Euro grand plan that might, just might, save the benighted single currency and stave off not just financial meltdown but save European democracy from those who would rent it asunder in the name of European political union. Even that consummate Euro-Aristocrat, Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank, this week warned that the Euro is fast becoming unsustainable in the absence of decisive action. The markets of course crashed…again!

Crises being like London buses they never come in ones. The US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta suggested in Singapore that by 2020 some 60% of the US Navy will be in the Pacific. What he was saying to all intents and purpose was that America is fast giving up on NATO, the implication being that Europeans are too. I wonder. Asia-Pacific might be ‘where it is at’ in grand strategy these days but as my close friend and former US Ambassador to NATO Robert Hunter rightly points out; the great tectonic fissures of grand political friction will still be found for the foreseeable future on the shores of a powerless Europe in North Africa and the Middle East.

And yet there was a light in the mire this week. There is a famous painting by Canaletto of the Royal Thames Pageant of 1662. At the time Charles II was only two years into his reign and England was slowly recovering from the civil war and Cromwell’s Republic. Charles wanted to show both the majesty and the continuity of monarchy.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II also went afloat this week.  She has afforded Britain both majesty and continuity during the momentous and revolutionary change that has taken place in the sixty years of her reign which the Diamond Jubilee is celebrating. At times ‘majesty’ has seemed at odds with a Britain in steep decline but precisely because of her sense of duty the Queen has done great service to both her country and much of the world beyond. However, it was not Her Majesty alone that warmed my heart but rather the sight of newly-arrived immigrants and refugees taking the chance to celebrate all things British.

Regular followers of this blog will know my concerns about the impact of hyper-imigration on British society and, in particular, English culture. The political left, which hates all things English, has tried to destroy Englishness through immigration-fuelled multiculturalism, and have by and large succeeded. The political right has used immigration as a way to impose ‘labour market flexibility’ and thus drive down the living standards of ordinary Britons in the name of ‘competitiveness’.

However, the sight of so many immigrants so keen to celebrate Britishness on the occasion of the Pageant gives me hope that one day a new society will emerge that sees itself as being British albeit in a very new kind of way. For that I offer them my heartfelt thanks as they might be shining a light on a future for all.

Contrast change in Britain with change in Europe, and I am now convinced more than ever that Britain and Europe are no longer the same. Behind the Eurozone crisis lurks an enormous EU-British crisis. Europe has no equivalent of the Queen, unless you count that nice Belgian, Mr Rompuy. There is no anchor of stability for Europeans to look to as Europe embarks on what in the next decade will be momentous change. Rather, there is a bunch of uncertain politicians all of whom lack the greatness the moment demands and who are utterly unable to see or grasp the bigger picture which is painting not only their respective destinies but those of their peoples.

My Roman friend also asked me if ‘Europe’ could really collapse. Yes, I said, it could all too easily collapse, because what the Euro crisis has shown is that 'Europe' does not really exist.  Perhaps we need a new 'Europe'.  Any ideas?

By the way it rained on the Queen. Tradition matters.

Julian Lindley-French

Free Speech: The Dangerous Conceits of Elites

Alphen, the Netherlands. 30 May. John Milton in a famous 1644 speech before Parliament during the English civil war famously said, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties”. There is much debate today about the chronic democratic deficit in the EU, i.e., the failure of political elites to uphold the principles of parliamentary democracy, to listen with integrity to and respond to the reasonable will of a majority of citizens. However, the creeping conceit of political elites is not confined to Brussels. Indeed, it is a phenemenon that is strengthening across Europe, as governments fail to cope with the mess they have created, not least in Britain. Three events have occurred this week in London that reinforce the sense of an elite not just out of touch, but willfully misinterpreting the public mood.

Conceit number one concerns the EU. Justice Minister Ken Clarke said this week that MP’s calling for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU were “a few extreme nationalist politicians”. And yet, far from being the preserve of a few wild-eyed political mavericks some 90% of the population in a recent poll demanded a so-called ‘in-out’ referendum on membership of an EU that bears no resemblance to the one last voted for in 1975.

Conceit number two concerns the judiciary. Lord Justice Leverson is heading a ravishingly juicy public enquiry into press malpractice. Or, to decribe it more accurately, why successive prime ministers got too close to ‘The Sun’ king, Rupert Murdoch, and how they are justifying it. This week the Education Minister Michael Gove gave evidence and warned against the curtailing of free speech in the name of press controls. Lord Justice Leverson intervened to lecture Gove rather grumpily that he needed no lessons on the importance of free speech. Apparently he does and so do his legal peers. The whole thrust of English law over the past decade or so has been the promotion of political correctness at the expense of free speech. As Gove pointed out; sooner or later free speech offends someone and that on balance it is free speech that should be given the higher priority unless such speech incites hatred or violence.

Conceit number three concerns England’s now draconian race laws which are specifically designed to curb free speech. This week Jacqueline Woodhouse was jailed for twenty-one weeks for a racist rant on the tube (London Undergound). Anyone who has seen her rant on U-tube and her assailing of fellow tube passengers in the most foul and offensive manner can only conclude that she had it coming. Her comments were both a clear incitement to hatred and violence and utterly unacceptable. However, in sentencing her Judge Michael Snow showed just how detached the judicial elite have become from workaday reality in Britain.

Woodhouse said, “I used to live in England, now I live in the United Nations”. This might not be how the elite may see things but go to any pub, or sit on any bus (something I suspect Judge Snow does not do very often) and you will hear perfectly decent people – black and white - expressing similar concerns, albeit thankfully more modestly. The Woodhouse case raises the most profound question that neither the political or judicial elite seem prepared to confront; where does freedom of speech stop and racism begin?

This week the British Government announced that over the past year a further 500,000 plus people entered Britain. Immigration is still out of control and ordinary people have every right to express legitimate concerns about a fundamental failure of policy. And yet racism laws are being used to suppress dissent. 

Living in the political bubble of modern politics, sharing more in common with their fellow European elite members than their own voters and assailed daily by pressure groups, lobbyists and special interests it is all too easy for politicians to retreat into a kind of politically correct la-la land in which ‘the people’ become the enemy – to be manipulated and kept at distance but rarely represented. This retreat into conceit is as much a danger to democracy in Europe as the drive to distance what democratic accountability there is ever further from the voter in the name of political union.

Can any state be called a democracy if free speech is sacrificed in the name of order? That has been long the refrain of dictators as far back as Aristotle. Milton also warned that, “None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence”.

Julian Lindley-French

Europe's New German Question

Alphen, the Netherlands. 28 May. Almost sixty years ago to the day the European Defence Community (EDC) Treaty was signed in Paris. Under pressure from an America facing a possible war on two fronts – Korea and Europe the aim was to create a European Army that would see West Germany re-armed to provide manpower for the defence of Europe only twelve years after Nazi troops had marched down the Champs Élysée. The French agreed but only on the condition that German forces were subsumed into a supranational European military force. In a moment of prescience Winston Churchill said of Britain, “we are with them, but not of them”. Nothing changes. In essence the EDC concerned the German question - how to constrain German power and to reassure France. Nothing indeed changes.

The durability of this question was brought home to me during my time at the EU Institute for Security Studies in Paris over a decade ago. The many meetings and conferences I attended on ‘project Europe’ all had the same sub-plot, French elite concerns about Germany and its power, matched only by German elite concerns about Germany and its power. For many years German guilt and French fear was enough to fashion a sort of balance of power. No more.

The late 1980s saw two things happen that would lead us all to the precipice over which we are now staring. German war guilt began to wear off just as German re-unification began to push Germany to the fore. Both then French Socialist President Francois Mitterand and British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saw the danger and were profoundly concerned about the power and influence of a united Germany especially given the pending collapse of the Soviet Union.

Typically, Mitterand and Thatcher chose radically different paths. Prime Minister Thatcher sought strategic separateness from Europe and a close relationship with the United States. President Mitterand believed the only way to constrain Germany was via European integration. This was to be achieved first by monetary union, which had first been dreamed up back in the late 1960s, and ultimately political union. The 1991 Maastricht Treaty was meant to see the launch of this grand French plan and the drive towards political union without which monetary union would not only be difficult, but downright dangerous. In then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl Mitterand found an unlikely conservative ally.

However, the French and German elites engineering this great experiment in sovereignty faced three profound dilemmas. First, many ordinary Europeans remained utterly wedded to national identity, not least the French. Second, with the end of the Cold War the moral imperative to extend the EU to the east was enormous, even though ‘widening’ undermined ‘deepening’. Third, Germany championed ‘integration’ but refused to pay for it, just as today. As another senior German said to me at the time, “Germany does not really understand the meaning of solidarity”.

The British response as per usual was utterly idiosyncratic. London said that under no circumstances would it give up national sovereignty and then promptly did so as successive British governments transferred power to Brussels without any semblance of permission from the British people. Today, Britain is in the worst of all Euro-worlds – obligation without influence. Indeed, Europe has rendered the British state virtually powerless to control even its own borders with the possible secession of Scotland pointing to a United Kingdom of little utility nor advantage.

2005 was the moment the slow landslide began towards today’s uber-crisis. French, Dutch, and other voters rejected the proposed Constitutional Treaty that would have established the ‘ever closer union’ that may (just may) have led to effective governance of the single currency. Today, Europe is split in two between southern and eastern Europeans who see ‘Europe’ as a metaphor for wealth transfers from the still reasonably and temporarily rich northern and western Europeans; and German, Dutch and other taxpayers determined to resist what they see as a money grab by the structurally inefficient south and east. Under President Hollande France sits uncomfortably between the two camps.

Beyond possible currency collapse the failure to answer the German question sees Europe today faced with the two great dangers of this European age born of the past; the twinned democracy and sovereignty deficits. Neither the EU nor the EU member-states have the power any longer to act decisively. The capacity to act has been lost down the political black hole that is Brussels. This exacerbates a popular and utterly justifiable impression on the part of the European peoples of a self-serving and incompetent Euro-elite over whom there is little effective political oversight.

There is of course an historical irony to all of this. In 1954 the EDC Treaty failed because France killed it. It was a sovereignty step too far. There is no reason to believe that today would be any different.

Sixty years on history remains as eloquent as ever in Europe and there is still no answer to the German question…simply a new question; empire, union or nothing.

Julian Lindley-French

The Joy of Democracy

Alphen, the Netherlands. 25 May. Tahar Ben Jelloun wrote that Egypt has suffered more ordeals than other countries to get where it is. That may or may not be true but to see the enthusiasm of Egyptians as they queue in their millions to vote is joyous. For the first time in five thousand years and some fifteen months after Hosni Mubarak was ousted Egyptians get to choose their leader. Some fifty million people are eligible to vote for thirteen candidates with a run-off scheduled for 16 and 17 June in the event no candidate manages to get more than 50% of the vote.

For all the West’s focus on Iran, and this week saw but the latest round of ‘5+1’ talks in an effort to come to some accommodation with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions, the future of Egypt is THE strategic question for the Middle East and much of the world beyond.

It could of course all go wrong. Even though the Army leadership in the form of the Military Council says it will hand over power to civilian leaders in June it still seems to believe it can maintain an undue influence over the political process. Like all new democracies there is always the danger of ‘one man, one vote, once’. There will no doubt be numerous cases of voting irregularities from people denied a vote to stuffed ballot boxes. Those dangers are ever present.

There is also the danger that all new democracies face; that the defeated will not accept the judgement of the people at the ballot box. Such fears are heightened by the sheer range of opinion contesting the election. Those standing for the office of president match Islamists against secularists, and revolutionaries against Mubarak loyalists. The institutions of the Egyptian state never strong under Mubarak (apart from the Army) will doubtless be tested in the years to come.

For the West this is one of those tricky moments when it has to face up to the consequence of its own rhetoric. The fact of Egyptian democracy represents a victory for the idea of democracy and should help put to bed the ridiculous notion that Arabs neither ‘get’ nor aspire to democracy. And yet the outcome might lead to an uncomfortable reality for the West – a legitimate and legitimised Islamist regime leading the largest Arab state. That government may make choices the West will find hard to swallow. What relationship will the new Cairo seek with Iran? What relationship will it seek with the Gulf States and Saudia Arabia? What influence will the new regime seek in the troubled lands of the Maghreb? What role will Egypt seek in Syria’s tragedy? What relationship will Cairo seek with the West? Above all, what relationship will Cairo seek with the Palestinians and by extension with Israel? The choices the new Cairo makes could well decide the fate of the Middle East and the Mediterranean basin at least as much as Iran’s nuclear ambitions or, indeed, the Euro crisis. Peace itself could be at stake in the choices Egyptians are now making.

Whoever takes the presidency, be it the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party in the form of Mohammed Mursi or the former foreign minister and Arab League head Amr Moussa these questions will remain acute. However, perhaps even more important than questions of foreign orientation will be the ongoing search for a just and durable political settlement that can help embed democracy, ensure that future handovers of power are peaceful and legitimate and that checks and balances are sufficiently robust to prevent the abuse of power that was all too evident during Mubarak’s grip on power. That more than anything will ensure a stable, balanced Egypt around which the Middle East will pivot.

Former Chinese Premier Cho En Lai when asked in the 1960s what he thought about the French Revolution of 1789 said that it was too early too tell. Egyptian democracy and the revolution that spawned it is still in its infancy. The challenge for the West will be to find a way to nurture democracy without giving the impression that it harbours neo-colonial ambitions. Egyptians are ever sensitive to the still recent experience of British rule and the Mandate established in the interbellum.

However, all these critical questions are for the future. For the moment I am simply going to savour the moment and humbly express my joy at watching millions of Egyptians execute and celebrate their democratic right at the ballot box.

It is the joy of democracy.

Julian Lindley-French

When Will You Face Strategic Reality, Mr NATO Secretary-General?

Alphen, the Netherlands. 23 May.

Dear Mr Secretary-General Rasmussen,

You and I share at least one thing; a passionate belief in the Atlantic Alliance and the vital role NATO must and will play in the future defence of our peoples and the security and stability of a fractious and dangerous world. Given the importance of that vital mission when will you face strategic reality, Mr Secretary-General? Chicago did not. All we the NATO public got were the usual blandishments from you the uber-elite and nothing to suggest the Alliance is properly preparing for the very big, dangerous, ‘strategic’ future that is about to ambush the West. Frankly, the NATO you oversee is losing strategic momentum by the day and Chicago did nothing to address that.

There are in fact four right now strategic realites you need to grip even before you begin to defend me credibly. First, what role NATO in America’s global role? The strategic dissonance between the United States (and the other ‘Anglo-Saxon’ powers in the Alliance) and continental Europeans is now critical. As the United States ‘pivots’ away from Europe towards Asia-Pacific it is opening a yawning gap in NATO’s already tattered strategic purpose. An Anglosphere is slowly forming that in time will see Canada and the United Kingdom join the Americans in a new maritime-centric global strategy whilst continental Europeans fiddle around with a failing defence effort that will kill NATO. The Eurozone crisis will drive the EU inexorably towards a new political settlement that in time will doubtless see the EU assuming responsibility for Europe’s defence however incompetent that may be. Chicago did nothing to answer that.

Second, how can NATO contain the poisonous legacy of Afghanistan? One of the drivers of the Anglosphere is the impression amongst the Americans, British and Canadians that they have been doing too much of the dying in Afghanistan. There have been honourable exceptions to the continental European rule such as your own Denmark, and of course Norway. And, of course, I pay tribute to those Europeans who have given their lives in what is after all meant to be a common effort. However, France’s decision to leave Afghanistan prematurely only heightens the sense amongst the Americans, British and Canadians that continental allies can never be trusted to be there at the sharp end when it really matters, whatever happened in Libya. This patent lack of trust at the heart of Alliance will not only hinder greater shared reliance on the reformed NATO Command Structure but also suck the life from multinational formations such as the NATO Response Force which is a paper tiger. Chicago did nothing to answer that.

Third, how does NATO rebuild a sense of a shared popular will? North Americans and Europeans might share the same values but do they really share the same security and defence? There is an implicit contract at the heart of Alliance; the less powerful gain the security of the most powerful in return for the sharing of NATO responsibilities. Today, that contract appears to many in North America and Britain as ‘you’ have a responsibility to defend ‘me’ but expect nothing back. To mask free-riding European politicians routinely trot out the now tired mantra that the Alliance is bound by shared values but there is little to demonstrate the fact. At a time when financial pressures should be promoting greater defence synergy the opposite seems to be happening. No Alliance can survive the imbalance of investment, risk and effort that NATO today represents. Chicago did nothing to answer that.

Fourth, how is NATO going to balance strategy, austerity and capability? Given the nature and scope of defence expenditure elsewhere in the world it is evident that NATO must up its capabilities game. However, in spite of the broad brushes of the 2010 Strategic Concept there is little or no agreement about how to close the now gulf that is the strategy-capability-austerity gap. You make the right noises about smart defence, cyber-defence, missile defence, advance deployable forces and civil-military planning, which must of course form the basic ‘mix’ for NATO’s future defence. At the heart of this dilemma are NATO’s future core capabilites and agreement how they might be afforded and yet is not even clear what NATO’s core capabilities should actually be. Chicago did nothing to address that.

Until you answer these questions with real substance NATO summits will come and go surpassing each other in champagne irrelevance and you will find yourself presiding over a failing, second-rate generator of inadequate coalitions. The Alliance and we the NATO people for whom you work deserve better. All you are doing, Mr Secretary-General, is managing NATO decline and you seem to have no answer to that. Chicago certainly did not.

Yours sincerely,

Julian Lindley-French

The G Fiddle, Dissemble and Wait Communiqué

Camp David, Maryland. 21 May.

Preamble

1. We, the Leaders of the Group of Fiddle, Dissemble and Wait, met at Camp David on May 18 and 19, 2012 to pretend to address major global economic and political challenges. In fact we have not got a clue what to do and in any case do not agree about anything much but we did agree that we have no responsibility for the pending disaster which was caused by our predecessors. Does anyone know who that is sitting in the corner?

The Global Economy

2. We welcome the never-ending discussion on the Euro and we agree to continue to endeavour to give the impression we seek a strong and cohesive Eurozone. We are pleased that a nice dinner will take place next week in Brussels to maintain that pretence. Greece must remain part of the Eurozone until the day we throw them out. We will also talk endlessly about global stability and recovery in the hope that our respective electorates are stupid enough to vote for us again. We invited the Germans to pay for the mess as they started the war. They declined.

Energy and Climate Change

3. We will continue to pretend that to meet our energy needs we are committed to seeking clean technologies and a balanced energy mix. In reality we have no time for any of this ‘green’ rubbish given the pending meltdown of our economies. We will also talk a lot about climate change and to tell our voters it is a good thing, particularly for Britain which is fast becoming a tropical island. We have a long-established principle at the G Fiddle, Dissemble and Wait of ‘do as we say, not as we do’, and will thus lecture developing economies about the need for climate responsibility. To that end we will use lots of long words like ‘sustainability’, ‘efficiency’ and ‘renewables’ and call upon the United Nations to set up another committee to ensure nothing ever actually happens. Can someone please tell us who that is in the corner?

Food Security and Nutrition

4. This is a good one as it gives the impression we the former rich care about all those poor people who do not vote for us. We thus agree to talk a lot about poverty reduction in Africa. We will also make sure that trade tarriffs prevent any export of farm produce from Africa to our economies that might impact upon our subsidy-guzzling farmers, particularly in Europe. They are far too important a group to risk offending and in any case several of us own land.

Afghanistan’s Economic Transition

5. We have made a real success of Afghanistan. It is such a success that our French friends are about to leave prematurely the job having been done. Given our success we will continue to pretend that we share a commitment to a sovereign, peaceful and stable Afghanistan, and that what passes for a ‘government’ in Kabul will take ‘full ownership’ of its own security, governance and development so that in time (we define that as a couple of hundred years and well beyond our next round of elections) Afghanistan will be free of terrorism, extremist violence, and illicit drug production and trafficking. Most of us will move onto Chicago to discuss high-level strategic pretence at the NATO Summit. Much will be made of our ‘success’ in Afghanistan and we will also celebrate progress on smart pretence and missile pretence. Has anyone any idea who that is in the corner?

Transitions in the Middle East and North Africa

6. We will continue to say that the mess in the Middle East and North Africa is a good thing and mutter a lot about freedom, human rights, democracy (which we are in the process of scrapping in Europe), job opportunities, empowerment and dignity. Of course, we will not believe a word of it and in private express great concern about the future chaos that beckons. In particular, we really hope the Egyptians vote for our Islamists and that democracy never reaches Saudia Arabia as it is bad for the oil price.

Political and Security Issues

7. We remain appalled by the loss of life, humanitarian crisis and serious and widespread human rights abuses in Syria but will not do anything very much about it. We of course remain united in our grave concern over Iran’s nuclear programme but will not do anything very much about that either. To ensure nothing is done we call upon the EU to take the lead on both issues and to evince the same political leadership as shown over the Euro crisis. When it all goes wrong we can then blame Brussels. Everybody else does. He is still there sitting in the corner. He never says anything.

Conclusion

8. We look forward to meeting in Britain under the presidency of the United Kingdom in 2013 at the Fiddle, Dissemble and Wait Pub, just off the A44 main road near Leominster. If, of course, the United Kingdom still exists and the British can still afford to buy us a good lunch. We all had a nice time here and the food was quite good, even if it was American. The wine was of course rubbish. By the way, one of the sherpas tells us that the man in the corner is called Herman and he is from the EU. Good to have clarifed something.

Julian Lindley-French