Alphen, The Netherlands. 9 August. Good news for Australia! The Aussies have just drawn level with my native Yorkshire in the Olympic's medal table with six whole gold medals. Team GB by the way have twenty-four golds but who's counting? Keep trying you Aussies! As we say in Yorkshire, 'na then! That means pay attention in Australian.
A Regular Commentary on Strategic Affairs from a Leading Commentator and Analyst
2023 Book: NATO - THE ENDURING ALLIANCE (London: Routledge)
2024 Book: THE RETREAT FROM STRATEGY with General Lord Richards (London: Hurst)
hms iron duke
Thursday 9 August 2012
Tuesday 7 August 2012
Vor You Tommy Ze Var Ist Ofer?
Alphen,
The Netherlands. 7 August. Those of you
of a certain vintage will remember those flinty, somewhat silly British war movies of the
1950s. The story line was always roughly
the same; a plucky British soldier, invariably called Tommy, armed only with a broken
toothbrush, elastic band and a piece of chewing gum would, after suffering much
adversity, defeat an entire Wehrmacht division.
At some point in the storyline Tommy would invariably and temporarily be
captured by some cartoon-cutout German who would invariably utter the immortal
line, “Vor you Tommy ze var ist Ofer”.
As we descend into the Euro abyss reading the German Kommentariat I am tempted to say some are
at it again. Britain, the line goes, has
no alternative but to accept the German view of Europe, so why can the silly
British not see it?
Part of
it is understandable frustration that in the midst of the Eurozone crisis the age-old
issue of Britain and Europe has again come to the fore. Equally, in spite of my huge respect for modern Germany the Kommentariat also reflect a German tendency to believe that what is good for Germany is good for Europe.
Thus, to the Kommentariat pursuit
of the German national interest is known as ‘European integration’, pursuit of the
British national interest ‘blackmail’.
Poor
little Britain, the line goes, is lost in a long-dead past, and wallowing in
misplaced schadenfraude at the
travails of the Eurozone. However, soon broke
Britain will break up and have no alternative but to accept the
German idea of ‘Europe’. The
more sophisticated members of the Kommentariat
recognise that such views are rather silly but worry that moves towards
political union could see Britain step inexorably towards an EU exit. This could do immeasurable damage, not least to
Germany’s leadership of Europe. The less sophisticated simply try to shame the
British into acquiescence suggesting the country with the world’s fifth or
sixth largest real economy and one of the most capable armed forces has no
alternative but to abandon national sovereignty in the name of ‘Europe’. Some even suggest that Britain is responsible for the
Eurozone crisis for not having joined the Euro!
The Kommentariat reflect a basic political
division between the two countries. The German view of ‘Europe’ is a
potent mix of romanticism and realism, whilst the British view (as much as there is one) is entirely pragmatic. Moreover, whilst the rest of Europe by and
large accept the German model of Europe, mainly to get their hands on German taxpayer’s
money, the British steadfastly refuse.
For
the British ‘Europe’ simply costs too much and could soon cost a lot more.
Britain ‘enjoys’ a huge trade deficit with the rest of the EU, and
transfers £4 ($6) to the rest of Europe for every £1 ($1.5) it gets back. Indeed, the only year Britain enjoyed a net
benefit was 1977, at the time of the last in-out British referendum – now
there’s a surprise.
The
British, or to be more precise the City of London, also provide a convenient
scapegoat for the Kommentariat to avoid a
simple truth; the problem is the Euro itself.
By extension London must not only be tamed but the British made to pay
for a crisis not of their making if the German taxpayer is to be protected.
However,
the ultimate silliness of the Kommentariat
is to pretend Britain has no alternative.
It is simply madness to think that a country the size, capability and
creativity of Britain could not make its own way in the world. If the Kommentariat
wants proof of that look no further than the London Olympics. The Games demonstrate again something the Kommentariat really should have learnt
by now; that the British when galvanised can be world-beaters. If only Britain’s defeatist elite could see
what the British people instinctively see.
Indeed, if there is a dangerous British malaise it is the void between
Britain’s vacuous leaders and its people.
However,
the Kommentariat
is right about one thing; Europeans must work together at this most dangerous of moments.
Certainly, Britain must do nothing to make this crisis worse than it already is. It is a shame then that silly talk of political union so blights effective,
pragmatic crisis management. Over time London
and Berlin need a new start but the perpetual belittling of Britain by the Kommentariat makes that hard.
There
is nothing that irritates the Kommentariat
more than British commentators using World War Two as a political metaphor – so
here goes. During the September 1944 Battle
of Arnhem surrounded and vastly out-numbered British paratroopers were offered surrender
terms by the Germans. “I am awfully
sorry, old chap”, came the reply. “We simply haven’t the room to take you all. Is there anything else?”
Julian
Lindley-French
Monday 6 August 2012
Australia Who?
Alphen, The Netherlands. 6 August. This is getting too easy. Whatever happened to the Dame Ednas of world sport? Each Olympics the Australian and British Sports Ministers have a bet as to which of the two countries will gain the most medals. This is traditionally preceded by a lot of empty Aussie talk of sporting supremacy. Don't worry, we British are tolerant of little countries with big egos. The loser, Senator Kate Lundy of Australia, will have to don a Team GB shirt and row the Olympic course, for lost she has...again! Last year England stuffed Australia at cricket in Australia, and now Team GB is giving the Aussies another hiding.
So, just for the record as of today Great Britain sits 3rd in the Olympic table with 37 medals of which 16 are gold, 11 bronze and 10 bronze. Australia sits (forgive the titter) 24th in the table with 1 gold, 12 silver and 7 bronze. A few too many tinnies, eh mate?
Australia who?
Julian Lindley-French
Friday 3 August 2012
Euro-Realism 3: Defending Europe
Alphen,
the Netherlands. 3 August. In one of
those deliciously Anglo-French moments this week President Hollande took a
swipe at the London Olympics and David Cameron.
Stung by Bradley Wiggin’s Tour de France Champs Elysee victory Hollande
said, “The British have
rolled out a red carpet for French athletes to win medals. I thank them very
much for that”. It was also a calculated
riposte to Cameron’s suggestion that the “red carpet” would be rolled out for
French economic refugees seeking to escape Hollande’s tax hikes. It would be easy to leave the Franco-British
relationship at that – a tragi-comic little battle over whose declining
influence is the greater. In fact the
London-Paris axis is Europe’s only true strategic defence relationship and thus
critical to the future defence of Europe.
As Europe heads inexorably towards the coming Euro mega-crisis cross-channel
defence relations will become more not less important and must be preserved at
all costs. The political realism inherent to the relationship acts as strategic
insurance against the woolly ideology of ‘Europe’ that has fathered the current
disaster.
Therefore, the
French-inspired decision to open up the 2010 Franco-British Defence and
Security Co-operation Treaty to others appears all the more strange and could well mark the
beginning of the end of this vital pact. Defence Minister Jean-Yves
Le Drian said France was not prepared to have a defence relationship with
Britain that was separate from other European allies. Strangely, Philip Hammond his British
counterpart, went along with this. The defence
relationship is now at the mercy of Eurozone
chaos. The timing could not have been worse.
Up to now London and Paris had
shown both sense and restraint by keeping the two distinct. At this most sensitive of moments the move
will certainly reinforce suspicions on the British right that the pact was
a French plot to weaken NATO and sucker the British into what they see
as the French-inspired EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Indeed, Hammond’s acquiescence looks to all
intents and purposes as a political sleight of hand – give the French what
they think they want knowing full well that in time it will destroy it.
The only
possible practical argument for this decision is that most big, complex defence
procurement projects are multi-national rather than bi-national, and that Germany
and Italy have been pressing to be included.
However, not only is that wrong; Britain and France share several major
projects, it also wilfully misses the point of the 2010 pact. In any case, multilateral structures already
exist and they are failing. Consequently, the pact
will now become EU defence-lite…and fail.
This is
exactly what happened to the 1998 St Malo Declaration which was meant to herald
a new dawn in Europe-centric defence co-operation between Britain and
France. However, St Malo was never given
enough time to mature into a trusting strategic partnership. Rather, the Germans and others sought the early
transformation of St Malo into the failed European Security and Defence Policy
(ESDP) because inclusivity was judged more important than credible capability. Subsequently, not only did the Franco-British
strategic defence relationship falter (and then crash with the 2003 Iraq War)
but European defence became mired in the EU’s political and bureaucratic
morasse in which it has been stuck ever since.
The simple fact
is that Britain and France are different and neither can afford any more of the
strategic political correctness that has done so much to denude Europe of a sound
defence. Britain and France together
represent almost 50% of European defence expenditure. They are Europe’s only two nuclear powers
(excluding Russia). They have by far
Europe’s most experienced and capable militaries and best strategic
thinkers.
The British will now move further towards an
American-led defence Anglosphere, whilst the Eurozone and European defence
will slowly become one and the same pulling each other into the abyss. The British will never join the Euro and for
that reason the defence of Europe must be kept separate from it. Indeed, the timing
of this move makes it even less likely that London will focus real political
energy on CSDP.
Therefore,
London and Paris need to pause and for once think together and think
strategically. With the French about to draft a new White Book on defence (Livre Blanc) and the British moving towards the 2015 Strategic Security and Defence Review the Franco-British
defence relationship must be seen by both for what it is; the most strategically-dynamic of its kind in Europe
that given time can emerge as the central pillar of Europe’s future defence. Then and only then should the relationship be opened up to others.
The Franco-British strategic defence relationship must be seen as a long-term partnership above and beyond local and short-term vicissitudes, however severe. Only then will European security and defence be re-connected to world security and defence, whatever the downstream institutional arrangements that turn power into structure.
The Franco-British strategic defence relationship must be seen as a long-term partnership above and beyond local and short-term vicissitudes, however severe. Only then will European security and defence be re-connected to world security and defence, whatever the downstream institutional arrangements that turn power into structure.
Perhaps President Hollande’s concluding Olympic
remark may have spoken truth. “The
competition is not over,” he said. I
suspect it never will be.
It is time for Euro-realism.
Julian
Lindley-French
Tuesday 31 July 2012
Syria’s Olympian Tragedy and the New Middle East
Alphen, the Netherlands. 30 July.
The struggle for Syria is forging a new Middle East. Summer Olympics are often used by desperate, repressive,
time-expired regimes to act repressively. The Russians invaded Georgia in the midst of
the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Now, the Assad
regime is attacking Syria’s largest city Aleppo. Some estimates suggest up to 200,000 people have
already been killed in the war with the UN estimating another 200,000
internally displaced and some 250,000 having fled abroad. Certainly, the loss of Syria’s biggest city
to the diverse anti-regime coalition could mark the beginning of the end for President
Assad and his Alawite-dominated minority government. Such is the level of outside interference
that the simple truth is that none of us know when and how this will end. The only thing that can be said with any
certainty is that the Baathist Syrian state is already dead. How the corpse is disposed of could well decide the
future shape and ‘balance’ of the new Middle East.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid
Al-Muallem flew to Tehran Sunday to seek more Iranian support. For Tehran Syria is critical in their efforts
to construct an anti-Israeli coalition that they hope will surround
Israel. Republican US Presidential
hopeful Mitt Romney, speaking in Jerusalem on Sunday, as part of a strangely
amateurish foreign policy venture, called for the strong US defence of Israel
and said that preventing Iran obtaining nuclear bombs would be his “highest
national security priority”.
The Free Syrian Army is being
supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and to some extent Turkey. This not only reflects the split within Islam
between Shia and Sunni, it also reflects the uneasy balancing act between Arab,
Persian, Kurd and Turk that plays out across the region and the struggle for
influence and supremacy over what it now the new Middle East.
The new Muslim Brotherhood
government in Cairo will be a key actor.
Indeed, the true litmus test for Egypt’s future foreign policy
orientation will be the fate of Cairo’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel. Any linkage Egypt makes between the struggle
of the Palestinians and the struggle in Syria could well decide Cairo’s
relationship with Israel.
All of this means that Israel
faces layers of uncertainty on its borders unparalleled since 1967 and much of
it beyond Tel Aviv’s control. Lebanon is
being daily more destabilised by the Syrian struggle by allegiances for which
local borders are meaningless. With some
1000 Syrian refugees a day now crossing from Syria into Jordan the Hashemite
Kingdom is again being destabilised.
Israel’s nightmare is to be
surrounded to the north and east by Iranian-backed proxies with Hezbollah to
the fore and to the south by a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority and a hostile
regime in Cairo.
In such an event Iran’s
nuclear bomb would not be used to directly threaten Israel but rather to
guarantee a free hand for Iran to build its anti-Israeli coalition. As ever the Palestinians are again being used
again for the wider designs of others.
It is a role into which they seem forever to have been cast.
And then there is the grand
strategic struggle. Syria is on the new
front-line of the new geo-politics. Yesterday’s
decision by Moscow to refuse to permit a search of any ship flying Russia’s
flag en route to Syria simply demonstrated the same old-fashioned thinking in
Moscow that led to the 2008 invasion of Georgia. However, the West’s reluctance to intervene
on humanitarian grounds is not simply due to Russian and/or Chinese intransigence. There are profound concerns about the impact
and cost of such an intervention and how it would influence a post-Assad government, the wider region and the dangers associated
with injecting Western forces into
the Middle East cauldron, particularly after such a bruising experience in
neighbouring Iraq and over-the-hill Afghanistan.
The simple truth is that the only
option available to the world’s real democracies (the conceptual West) is concerted
and systematic diplomatic and humanitarian pressure. Given that the West must focus policy on Syria
and Syrians. Now that the Annan peace
plan is dead the concerted aim must be to decouple as much as possible the
conflict from the regional and global issues that are so clouding it and put
all efforts into finding an early and durable solution for Syrian people. Only then and only in time might a successor
regime emerge in Damascus that is neither a threat to itself or others, but
there is no guarantee.
The simple truth is that this
struggle has so many players that anyone offering a clear view can only do so
from the perspective of ignorance or bias.
As the world loses itself in an
Olympian dream a nightmare is awakening.
It is time to wake up!
Julian Lindley-French
Friday 27 July 2012
OIympic London
Alphen, The Netherlands. 27 July.
Nineteenth century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once described
London as the modern Babylon. Today, the
Games of the XXX Olympiad begin in London.
Over five weeks both the Olympic Games and the Paralympics will, to
employ one of the many Olympic cliches now in the starting blocks, shine the
light of the world on Britain’s capital city.
What London will it reveal?
In a sense it was entirely
appropriate that London was awarded the Olympics and not Britain. For a long-time now a settlement founded by
the Romans between AD 43 and 50 has been a city-state within a state. This old, great city now has a population of
over 9 million people, which according to the 2011 national census released
last week grew by some 800,000 over the past decade and probably many
more. Today, London contains over 20% of
the UK’s total population.
London’s economic and corporate
stats are simply stunning. London
contributes some 17% of Britain’s total GDP, with an economy roughly the size of
Sweden, Belgium and Russia. It is home
to the European headquarters of 35% of the world’s largest companies, many of
them Olympic sponsors. 65% of Fortune’s Global 500 companies base
their operation centres in London with more foreign banks represented than any
other world city. London is thus the very
symbol of globalisation – for good and ill.
Like many Britons my feelings for
London are profoundly ambiguous. Naturally,
I am proud of what this city has come to represent as a beacon of freedom
during war and a world power in its own right.
And yet much of its wealth was founded on oppression and its under-regulated
banks have done much to tarnish the reputation of London and done much damage
to the wider British economy.
And yet this is the paradox of London.
The British Government might pretend it
will act to tighten regulation over Mammon, but in reality it is Mammon which
runs the British Government. London’s
financial clout is far too important for a government desperate for tax
revenues in a depression.
This week it was announced that year-on-year the British economy had
shrunk by 0.7% by the end of Q2 2012. Thus,
the benighted banks will receive no more than a slapped wrist for their many
manipulations, the LIBOR scandal being but the latest and probably by no means
the last.
However, it is London’s
over-bearing political influence that is perhaps most
profound. London long ago subjugated
England and turned a green and pleasant land into a sometimes quaint, sometimes fractured
hinterland. The little countries on London's
periphery have retreated into the fantasies of faux self-government replete with myth and legend. Indeed, the Scots
pretence that they can gain pretend independence if they press the Braveheart
button will only reveal further the true power in the land - London. Scotland the Brave will forever be Scotland
the Broke without London.
Having vanquished the rest of
Britain a new battle is being fought by London and over London. On one side of the front-line stand those who
see London as the champion of free-market globalisation. Capitals flows are their weapons of choice,
their aim to make London as attractive as possible to as much foreign capital
as possible wheresoever its provenance and however ill-gotten a gain. Leading the assault on the City walls is the
European Commission at the head of a medieval assembly of European regulation
barons. At heart this struggle for
London is one between Anglo-Saxon-led free-marketeers and continental statists. It is a struggle that has already seen many continental free
market refugees arrive in London like latter-day Huguenots.
The struggle even takes a
physical form. The new high-speed rail
link through the Channel Tunnel to Paris, Brussels and shortly beyond is a
physical manifestation of attempts by continental Europeans to forever tie
London’s destiny and that of Britain to their own, which is unlikely to be a
happy one. And yet, even though that
great old River Thames which has for two millenia defined London flows to the
East it rises in the West. In this
age of electronic capital it is ultimately the West, South and far East where
London sees it destiny. Globalisation
will prevail. Yes, European markets matter but the greater the effort by Brussels to tether London the more likely it will break free. At this defining point in ‘Europe’s’
destiny one thing is clear, London is with them but not of them, to paraphrase
Churchill’s great dictum about Britain and Europe.
So, in a sense, the
Olympics and London are made for each other. For, if the Olympics these
days represents the place where global capital meets global sport, the London Olympics
represents the global capital that pays for Olympic sport.
Citius, Altius, Fortius!
Julian Lindley-French
Wednesday 25 July 2012
Euro-Realism 2: How Safe is My Money?
Alphen, The Netherlands. 25 July.
Here we go again. Lucullus, in Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens (spot the irony) warns, “This
is no time to lend money, especially upon bare friendship without security”. As
a Dutch tax-payer that warning carries little irony as billions of my hard-earned tax Euros and those of my fellow
tax-payers have already vanished down the black hole of a failing currency –
either in direct transfers or by printing money that I will forever have to underwrite. No wonder the Dutch political elite have
decided to go AWOL and that this is a good time NOT to have a
government.
This week’s statement by rating
agency Moody’s, a Dark Lord of the Market Universe, that the AAA borrowing status
of Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands is now on notice thus comes as no
surprise. Indeed, in spite of German
protests it strikes me as plain common sense as the sums of my money needed to save
the benighted Euro become ever more astronomical.
“Even if such an event [a Greek exit from the Euro] is avoided, there is
an increasing likelihood that greater collective support for other Euro area
sovereigns, most notably Spain and Italy, will be required”. The statement goes on; “The burden will
likely fall most heavily on more highly-rated member-states [i.e. me] if the
Euro area is to be preserved in its current form”.
German Finance Minister Wolfgang
Schaüble thinks Greece now incapable of reform and yet this week the so-called troika;
the IMF, European Central Bank (ECB) and European Commission arrived in Athens
to assess Greek ‘eligibility’ for another €31.5 billion ($38.1bn) of my money. This is
the 'last' tranche of an €130bn ($157.4bn) bail out that apparently I agreed to last
March. Although the Greeks have managed
to trim €17bn ($20.5bn) from their national debt to bring it down from 160% of GDP
to 132% it is nothing like enough.
Now, Athens has stalled. Greece
has promised to reduce it budget deficit to below 3% of GDP by the end of
2014. In 2011 the Greek overspend was the
equivalent of 9% of GDP. Clearly, the 3%
target is pure Greek drama as Athens is now behind with its spending
cuts as the Greek economy shrinks faster than planned. More importantly, reports from within the all-mighty German Central Bank
(Bundesbank) indicate that Berlin now accepts Greece’s exit from the Eurozone
as inevitable which means all my money will be lost. And yet Athens may demand another €50bn ($60.5bn).
On to Spain. As the value of Spanish government debt
plunges Spanish banks are beginning to crack with some €250bn ($302.7bn) in
government bonds in their vaults, some 30% of Spain’s national debt. The ECB has already told me that I ‘promised’
€100bn ($121.1bn) of my money to pump into Spain’s banks, even as the Spanish take their money
out and put it all in German banks – so much for solidarity. Indeed, Spanish banks have lost 3% of their
deposits in recent weeks, leading them to take a further €106bn ($128.3bn) of my money via the ECB or some 9.5% of
their total borrowing.
My money is also being used for
similar purposes in Ireland and Portugal and it is fast reaching a point where
the indirect transfers of my money via the ECB must be replaced by direct
transfers of my money via the Dutch, German and other governments. And now I hear that Italy, the world’s third biggest
debtor, may also need enormous chunks of my money, I must be incredibly rich.
Sadly, I am not rich. Rather, I am being asked, no forced to bankrupt myself,
to risk all for which I have worked so hard for so many years and to end my
life a pauper simply to fund permanently failed southern European economies and
an absurd piece of political adventurism in the name of a European solidarity that exists only in the minds of the Euro-Aristocracy who have enriched themselves in the name of Europe.
The simple fact is that whatever
the economic and political shape of Europe the state institutions of southern
European countries are simply not strong enough to withstand the shock of
reform needed to ween them off my money.
There are thus three questions I want the politicians who put me in this
mess to answer. First, how much is
saving the Euro worth? Second, how much
would the break up of the Euro cost?
Third, (and most pressing) when is this going to end…and how?
How safe is my money? The one thing I will never get is an answer.
Julian Lindley-French
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)