BBC: State within a State

Alphen, Netherlands. 16 March. As Britain has declined as a world (and European) actor, it has become the pre-eminent world (and European) commentator. If there is one post-imperial British complex that persists, it is the firm belief amongst Britain’s elite Establishment that whilst it might be useless at running Britain, it still knows best for everybody else.  At the pinnacle of British self-delusion sits the BBC – Britain’s master strategic communicator.  However, over the past twenty years the BBC has shifted from commentator to social engineer and been steadily captured by the left-liberal elite in the process.  Today, the world’s most famous broadcaster is a failing state within an increasingly uncertain state.

Last week a scandal broke that demonstrated not just the extent to which “Auntie Beeb” has shifted to the political Left, but the gap that now exists between the leftist elite that run the BBC and the mass of the British population.  “Top Gear” is the world’s most profitable documentary programme which the BBC very profitably exports to over 100 countries world-wide.  Until last week it was led by an irreverent Yorkshireman called Jeremy Clarkson who specialises in winding up the Metropolitan liberal-left elite who run the BBC. 

Now, I get Clarkson, even though at times I find him childish and nauseating. He was born one year after me and 10 miles/18 kilometres from me.  We both share a strong Yorkshire culture which is essentially an inbuilt distrust of power and its many conceits, and a willingness to say so.  The comparison ends there. Whilst Clarkson has turned his irreverence into a multi-million pound empire I am a bloke who writes blogs.

At the heart of the dispute is the relationship between the BBC’s oh-so politically-correct elite management and their oh-so politically-correct left-liberal world view, and the mass of ‘blokes’ for whom Clarkson is their champion and whom the BBC by and large despises.  Now, let me pause at this juncture, and provide some hard detail of the spat.  Clarkson is alleged (alleged) to have punched a producer during a row and has been suspended as a consequence.  If Clarkson did indeed commit violence then I have no sympathy for him.  He must go.  However, the BBC leadership has been out to get Clarkson for years because he does not accept the left-liberal bias the BBC now routinely presents as ‘fact’.  As of late over 1 million people (most of them ‘blokes’ no doubt) have signed an online petition to have Clarkson re-instated. I suspect many of them see this as the perfect opportunity to attack the BBC.

Normally I would not have considered this material for my strategy blog. However, given the high-global profile of the BBC as a strategic communicator the capture of it by one political mono-culture is in danger of making it little different to RT (Russia Today) – a purveyor of sophisticated (and not-so-sophisticated) propaganda rather than impartial analysis. 

The drift to the political Left is revealed in the BBC’s editorial policy and the move towards social engineering implied therein.  For example, over the past month the BBC has been running a trailer for its flagship radio news programme “Today” featuring artist Grayson Perry.  Mr Perry delivers a two-minute leftist rant which the BBC then presents as ‘fact’ under the rubric “To see the world clearly…”  Moreover, all of the BBC’s comedians are of a left-wing persuasion with open-season declared by the BBC on anyone with a centrist or centre-right viewpoint.  The BBC openly champions feminism and all forms for ‘positive discrimination’ as a matter of course and fact. 

Now, as a social progressive I happen to believe in many of these issues.  Indeed, I have little sympathy for nostalgia, Britain is a multicultural country and such a country will only survive and prosper in this world if it is open to all the talents irrespective of race, gender, orientation, etc.  And yet the BBC is not only closed to at least half of the talents, it is actively championing the other half and that is not its purpose.

Worse, the BBC sees itself as a state within a state.  For example, Britain has a hybrid system of measurements which incorporates both the metric and imperial systems.  For longer measurements, such as road signs, miles are still used as the official measurement.  Now, one could argue that as a European country Britain should switch to kilometres, but that is not government policy. And yet the BBC now routinely refers to ‘kilometres’ in its domestic news programmes, which a mass of the population simply does not understand. In other words, the BBC is deciding national policy.

Two of my friends are senior BBC reporters.  They have both told me of occasions when key elements of their stories have been ‘pulled’ because senior editors feared that the facts might offend an ethnic minority or another group.  Indeed, the BBC routinely refuses to discuss issues of race, religion. and indeed Europe, that might in some way be deemed to offend left-wing sensibilities.  Consequently, trust in the BBC has plummeted.

The BBC’s decline into factionalism is a salutary lesson of what happens when a broadcaster is captured by a political mono-culture.  The BBC of today is a far cry from the broadcaster that became the voice of freedom during World War Two.  Indeed, it was the BBC which broadcast two lines of a Verlaine poem which informed the French Resistance that D-Day was imminent. 

Rather, the BBC today is a left-wing advocacy organisation that wants to make left-wing programmes for left-wing people at the expense of everybody else.  There is nothing wrong in that per se but because the BBC has abandoned impartiality it must at the very least re-discover balance.  Above all, the BBC must learn again to be modest.  It is a broadcaster, not a state within a state and it could again if properly led be a broadcaster of which Britain, and indeed Europe, could be proud.

Julian Lindley-French

France Throws a Waterloo Wobbly

Alphen, Netherlands. 13 March. On 18 June, 1815 Arthur, Duke of Wellington, with minor support from assorted Johnny Euros, gave some diminutive Frenchman with ideas decidedly above his station in life, and whose name escapes me, a dashed sound thrashing at the Battle of Waterloo, just off the autoweg/autoroute south of Brussels.  Belgium, which in 1839 was formed partly as a consequence of the massive, total and complete British victory over assorted French wallahs on the field of Waterloo, had wanted to prepare a commemorative two euro coin to mark the occasion of Britain’s complete and utter confounding of the French.  Sadly, the heirs of the Frenchman, whose name I forget, have reacted to the idea very badly and, sad to say, not untypically. 

Clearly, some senior bod in Paris, who apparently suffers from a self-righteous hot baguette up his backside, and not for the first time, has objected to the idea of the coin and the Belgians, not for the first time, have surrendered…rapidly.  In a letter the French Government, commenting on Belgium’s submission of a coin design to the Council of the European Union, said that the proposed coin, “could cause hostile reactions in France”. And?

The aforesaid baguette-afflicted senior French official went onto suggest that the coin would carry, “a symbol that is negative for a fraction of the European population”. That must mean the French ‘fraction’…that lost.  The rest of us are having a scream.  Moreover, M. Baguette said, “…the coin would risk engendering hostile reactions in France”.  What 200 years on?  However, the clincher, and I really wonder if M. Baguette was at this point suppressing Gallic humour, “The Battle of Waterloo is an event of particular resonance in the collective conscience, going beyond a simple military conflict”.  You bet it is, and indeed, was.  Britain, and not for the last time, and with the support of European allies, defeated the dictatorial imposition of someone else’s idea of how Europe should be organised and who should organise it. I wonder what Napoleon Juncker thinks about all this?

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I have a profound respect for France and the French. My years working in France not only convinced me of the generosity of spirit of the French people. but France’s capacity to think big, which I deeply admire.  However, the French Establishment can on occasions turn self-righteous pomposity into a theatre d’absurde and this is one such occasion. 

The Battle of Waterloo was one of those ‘Europe’ forming moments in history.  It led to the 1815 Congress of Vienna which one could argue was the first true attempt to envision the idea of ‘Europe’ as a voluntary association of states.  The Great Congress rejected the idea that European order could be imposed by any one state, something which not only led to Napoleon’s demise, but in time that of the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin. 

Therefore, Belgium is right to seek to commemorate this great European moment, and wrong to cave into French pressure. Waterloo was a great moment in the development of contemporary Europe and France should stop allowing its absurdly romantic view of Napoleon to block the minting of the coin.  Unfortunately, so absurdly romantic has the French view of Waterloo become that on the anniversary of the battle one French re-enactor wants to re-stage the battle and pretend that Napoleon won.  He did not - Napoleon lost, Wellington won. Period!

Sensibly the British have stayed out of this spat.  The last time Britain and France went head-to-head over Waterloo was when some wag in London decided the new Eurostar trains should end their journey from Paris at London’s Waterloo Station.  Upon the announcement a French deputé rose in the Assemblée Nationale to threaten the renaming of the co-terminus Gare du Nord after a French victory over the British.  In what was his finest parliamentary moment then Prime Minister John Major rose in the House of Commons to announce that helpfully he had instructed ‘his people’ to find a French victory over the British. Sadly, they failed and the most they could come up with was the 1745 Battle of Fontenoy, “which was an honourable draw”.

The coup de grace during the Battle of Waterloo was the moment when Wellington shouted, “Now Maitland! Now’s your time!”  Maitland’s Brigade of Foot Guards, having outflanked the French Imperial Guard, rose as one to fire volley after volley into the Guard.  The Imperial Guard broke, Boney lost the battle and the war, and the rest is history.  He was then shuffled off to see out his days on the windswept island of St Helena at His Majesty’s Pleasure.

Thankfully, France need not despair.  London has decided to produce a new five pound note to commemorate Waterloo.  As Wellington said to Picton as the Imperial Guard advanced, “Picton, they’re coming on in the same old style”.  To which Picton replied, “Ay, Wellington. And we will have to meet them in the same old style”.

Get a life, France!

Julian Lindley-French 

European Defence Juncked?

Alphen, Netherlands. 11 March. He is at it again. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, JC to his friends, called this week for an EU Army to a) stand up to the Russians; b) demonstrate that Europeans are serious about defending their values; and c) pave the way to a genuine Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).  JC is clearly employing a classic Euro-Federalist tactic known in the trade as neo-functionalism. This is where external crises are exploited politically by federalists to wrest power from the member-states in the name of efficiency with the aim of creating an EU super-state by dismantling the state step-by-step.  And yet for all that JC might have a point, although as per usual for all the wrong reasons.  If Europeans are to balance strategy, affordability, military capability, but above all credibility, they either spend more, integrate more, or find a credible balance between the two. Indeed, Russian military adventurism has clearly been encouraged by European military weakness and the appeasement of reality it implies.

It is not the first time a Russian threat has led to calls for a European Army. With the Korean War straining US forces and with over 300 Soviet divisions facing NATO, the European Defence Community (EDC) Treaty was signed on 9 May, 1952.  The Treaty called for the creation of a European military force overseen by a European Commission.  Moreover, on 10^th September, 1952, it was agreed by the then six signatory states to move towards a European Political Community (EPC), which in time became CFSP.  Indeed, on 15^th December, 1952 then West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer said that a common defence policy without a common foreign policy would not work.  Roll on 63 years and the issues are not that different.  US forces are stretched thin the world-over, Russia poses a resurgent military threat to both NATO and the EU, and Europe is just beginning to emerge from a financial cataclysm. 

One of the many complex reasons for the Eurozone crisis is that its members are in denial about the political logic of the single currency and the single governance such a structure needs.  The logic of the Eurozone was and is ever closer union, and such union includes foreign, security and defence policy. And yet, most Eurozone members are in complete denial about the consequences and contradictions of their stance.  The result is Europe’s strategic paralysis.

Furthermore, with some 16 EU member-states spending less than €4bn per annum on defence (and badly) JC is also correct when he asserts that an EU Army would lead to economies of scale, particularly when it came to defence procurement.  By making each euro go further through defence integration the “significant savings” he claims would indeed be realised. 

However, behind the apparent logic of JC’s call (which is not at all new) is the same divide that ultimately killed the EDC – collective defence versus common defence.  Collective defence is a gathering of like-minded nation-states that decide collectively over the use of force, i.e. NATO. It is not efficient, rarely fully effective, but it is legitimate because the forces involved come from national members and remain under national control.

Common defence means, implies, and would require a common government.  Indeed, one could not have an EU Army without a common government and any attempt to create some form of hybrid governance would probably mean force could only ever be used in absolute extremis.  To put it bluntly, who would send my fellow-Sheffielder to his or her death who was part of such a force?  Without an EU government such a force would look pretty but in effect be useless – much like the euphemistically-named EU Battle Groups.

However, if European nation-states continue to cut their defence budgets or fail to meet their defence-spending commitments the logic of a common defence and by extension an EU super-state will become irresistible. Indeed, it would be the only way to balance military effectiveness with military efficiency in a world in which illiberal military power is fast out-stripping liberal military power.

This week the US Ambassador to the UN Susan Power also called on Europeans to spend more on defence.  The message was clear; Europe’s retreat from defence-sanity will not only force Europeans to live with far higher risk, it also risks in turn the effective end of a meaningful transatlantic security relationship.  The US taxpayer will not go on endlessly subsidising the defence of the European taxpayer. 

So, JC is right.  Europeans must decide – either their states spend more on defence or they integrate their forces more closely and abandon any pretence to defence sovereignty.  For some defence integration makes perfect sense, for others not.  Therefore, the balance to be struck between ‘collective’ and ‘common’ defence is Europe’s quintessential twenty-first century strategic challenge.

As for the European Defence Community it collapsed on 29 August, 1954 when the French Parliament refused to ratify the EDC Treaty unable to accept the end of French defence sovereignty and concerned that German power would be significantly enhanced.  However, Adenauer was right then as now; a common defence cannot work without a common foreign and security policy, and that in turn means a European government.

Plus ça change, plus la meme chose!

Julian Lindley-French

Britain in Danger

Alphen, Netherlands. 9 March. Britain is in danger.  It is in danger from a revanchist Russia, determined to turn back the clock of history.  It is in danger from Islamic State and Al Qaeda determined to turn back the clock of civilisation. It is in danger from Jean-Claude Juncker and his fellow EU-federalists who want to replace the European nation-state with an EU super-state.  Yesterday, Juncker opportunistically sought to capitalise on Russia’s aggression by calling for an EU Army.  It is in danger from the seemingly interminable Eurozone crisis.  It is in danger from irresponsible immigration and those on the political Left and Right who for their own reasons refuse to recognise the very clear link that exists between some aspects of mass-immigration (by no means all) and insecurity.  However, the greatest danger Britain faces is from its own political class who seem to become daily more detached from any sense of the national interest or the vital role Britain still has to play in Europe’s security, and that of the world beyond.

In my now many years on this planet I have endured many British general election campaigns.  The current ‘campaign’ is quite simply the worst, most unworldly, most cynical, I have ever endured – on both sides of the political divide.  Indeed, whilst most elections are fought out as a rush to occupy the political centre-ground, the May 2015 General Election seems to be a rush by both Labour and Conservative leaderships to evacuate the middle ground…and sod reality in the process.  Indeed, Britain’s increasingly radicalised, professional political class bring to mind former Irish Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald who when confronted with a particularly irate Margaret Thatcher at the height of difficult negotiations for the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement said, “That is all very well, Prime Minister.  What you say may indeed work in fact, but does it work in theory?”

Neither Team Cameron nor Team Miliband seems to have any sense of the national interest, or the real and very dangerous world which exists beyond the Westminster/Whitehall bubble, and which is getting daily closer.  Cameron has tried to effectively kill any debate about Britain’s security and defence and has absolutely no interest in discussing Britain’s place in the world.  Miliband and the Left simply trot out the unworldly mantra that aid and development IS an investment in security, implying that ring-fencing the aid budget should be seen as an alternative to defence investment. 

When I wrote my new paperback Little Britain? Twenty-First Century Strategy for a Middling European Power (five-star reviewed at www.amazon.co.uk) it was a cri de coeur, a plaidoyer (and other French words) for London’s High Establishment – both political and bureaucratic – to return to effective statecraft, and to craft Britain’s still not inconsiderable soft and hard power into coherent national strategy.  Critically, the book pleads with politicians to for once put strategy before politics and defend Britain’s vital national interests at a vital time by re-embracing political realism.  And yet, later this year, be it Cameron or Miliband, Britain will abandon the minimum NATO commitment of 2% GDP on defence – the foundation upon which all British influence and effect is built. 

This will happen not because of sound strategic analysis, although national and defence ‘strategies’ will be prepared to provide some form of political alibi.  It will happen because both Cameron and Miliband are isolationists who for their respective reasons are locked into their respective ideological positions both of which in some way involve and require the abandonment of political realism.  Cameron is committed to deficit-busting cuts at any cost whatever is happening in Britain’s strategic environment.  Miliband is committed to transferring as much national wealth as possible into the National Health Service, social care and welfare.  Given the balance to be struck between strategy, security and affordability it is Britain’s defences that will inevitably be raided.    

So, in the vain hope reality may at some point break-out in Britain’s High Establishment let me point out Britain’s hard realities.  President Putin by 2020 will have injected some £700bn in new armed forces.  Between 2015 and 2020 the US will cut its defence budget by more than Europe’s entire collective defence investment. According to a Home Office report leaked this weekend of the 700 or so Islamists who left Britain to fight with Islamic State, over 300 have returned to Britain many of whom are actively planning terrorist attacks.  This weekend it was announced that Islamic State had established a strong presence in Libya.  There are some 200,000 refugees waiting in Libya to cross into Europe.

In an ideal world Dave, George and Ed could indeed raid Britain’s defences to bribe their respective sets of core supporters.  Sadly, the world is anything but ideal and like it or not Britain is a security anchor-state. If Britain abandons political realism for political fancy it is not just Britain that will suffer, but Europe, and much of the world beyond.

How I weep for thee my country. What did we British do to deserve these politicians?

Julian Lindley-French

Is Obama Decoupling Israel?

Alphen, Netherlands. 5 March. The great historian A.J.P. Taylor once said of Winston Churchill, “If he could not do something effective, he would do something ineffective”.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly has a similar view of President Obama and the latter’s efforts to secure a permanent P5+1 treaty with Iran that would prevent Tehran arming itself with nuclear weapons.  In what was a brazen intervention into US politics, and a deliberate snub to President Obama, Netanyahu warned the US Congress Tuesday that any permanent deal with Iran “could pave Iran’s path to the bomb”.  Netanyahu’s high-risk gambit was clearly a brazen attempt to boost his political standing prior to the 17 March Israeli elections.  Equally, his Washington intervention not only shows the extent to which the world views of Netanyahu and Obama diverge, but a dangerous fragility in the US-Israeli “strategic partnership”, and at a dangerous moment. Certainly, an imperfect agreement would tip the balance of power in the Middle East at several levels, a prospect that worries the Saudis just as much as the Israelis.

In May 1976, shortly after President Carter had taken office, senior State Department official Leslie Gelb wrote that the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles to Europe would create a Eurostrategic balance and thus have the effect of decoupling the US strategic arsenal from the defence of Europe.  Consequently, the credibility of the US strategic deterrent would be reduced and with it US extended deterrence of Soviet aggression.  Europeans also worried that as the Americans closed in on a warhead-limiting SALT 2 treaty with the Soviet Union the US nuclear deterrent would be further decoupled from the defence of Europe. Such an aim was clearly part of Soviet strategy at the time and the European Allies were particularly concerned by Washington negotiating over Europe's security with Moscow, and yet over their collective heads.  Netanyahu’s Washington speech echoes those concerns.

Netanyahu’s view of Obama is also reminiscent of then West German Helmut Schmidt’s view of President Jimmy Carter. A March 1977 editorial in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung said, “Bonn is concerned that Jimmy Carter is a man ruling the White House whose moral and religious convictions are incompatible with the demands of world politics”.  Contrast that with what Netanyahu said of the proposed P5+1 treaty, “We’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well this is a bad deal, a very bad deal. We’re better off without it”.  

Netanyahu’s world-view is that one only deals with states such as Iran through strength and enforced denial.  Netanyahu’s fear is that as Obama approaches the end of his presidency he will become ever more focused on his legacy. And, that consequently, Obama might agree an imperfect nuclear deal with Iran over Israel’s head from which Iran could defect with relative ease and face little effective sanction. 

The Iranian negotiators seem to be betting on the same outcome.  In the Geneva talks they are negotiating particularly hard (the Iranians are hard negotiators) over on-site inspections and the extent and scope of the verification regime at the heart of the proposed treaty.  Their tactic seems to be based on the apparent hope that as time runs out on the Obama presidency the Americans would concede sufficient ground to enable Iran to continue clandestine development of an Iranian bomb. 

There are of course differences between Israel in 2015 and Europe in the late 1970s.  Back then the Soviet Union threatened the destruction of Continental North America. Iran could not possibly hope to strike America with a first generation nuclear capability.  However, given Iran’s missile arsenal  Tehran, at least in theory, could attack America’s allies, either in the region or in Europe.

Furthermore, Israel has some 450 nuclear warheads in its arsenal at Dimona as an independent guarantee against attack. Like the British and French nuclear systems the Israeli nuclear capability is designed as much to tie the Americans in as keep the Iranians out. And, although the US and Israel do not share the kind of formal commitments to nuclear deterrence and defence as those between Washington and its European allies, there is an implicit understanding that the US will afford Israel extended nuclear deterrence.  That implicit agreement is the ‘strategic’ in the US-Israeli strategic partnership to which Netanyahu referred.

However, an imperfect P5+1 permanent treaty could permit Iran to suddenly break-out of its commitment and announce to the world that it did indeed possess the capability to destroy the State of Israel.  If that happened much of Israel’s (and indeed America’s) conventional military capability in the region would be instantly stalemated.  Moreover, Tehran would have successfully crafted the strategic and political space to continue with its hybrid, proxy war against Israel, Saudi Arabia, and by extension decisively tip the balance of power in the Middle East.

Therefore, for all Netanyahu’s politicking in Washington this week he does have a strategic point.  A P5+1 treaty with Tehran, and any subsequent easing of economic sanctions, must be linked to a change in Iran’s regional strategy.  Netanyahu fears that Obama will focus instead on a narrow, rules-based approach and simply concentrate on the modalities of the proposed treaty without linking a final agreement to a shift in Iran’s wider foreign and security policy behaviour.

In 1975 Amos P. Jordan, the US Principal Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Affairs, wrote, “The thing that is troubling our European allies in particular is not our military capability but what they perceive to be shaky coherence and national unity which may make it impossible to use those military capabilities. It is the credibility of our commitment, not the existence of our commitments or the strength of our forces that is the doubt in their minds”.  These concerns were also held in Europe.  On August 20, 1978, The Economist wrote, “Some Europeans have always doubted whether the Americans would fight a nuclear war for Europe; and even the trusters are beginning to think that what might have been true when the United States had a commanding lead [in nuclear capability] is not necessarily true now”. 

Some say Netanyahu over-played his political hand in Washington this week. Given Israel's precarious strategic situation it is hard if not impossible for an Israeli leader ever to over-play a political hand given the possible alternative. Iran clearly has its own strategic interests as do all states and they must be respected. Equally, such interests remain driven by Tehran's determination to destroy Israel to confirm Iran's regional-strategic dominance. Therefore, whilst the Obama Administration has tended to emphasise an America that speaks softly, and not without effect, Washington must never forget its big stick.  Indeed, when it comes to matters nuclear it is always better to do something effective than something dangerously ineffective.

Of course, Tel Aviv's ultimate deterrent is that for all the current friction with Washington Israel enjoys something the British, for example, do not enjoy - a real Special Relationship with America. Any decoupling would only ever happen by mistaken strategic calculation and it is that which clearly worries Netanyahu.   

Julian Lindley-French

Putin’s Nemesov?

Alphen, Netherlands. 2 March. What does the murder of Boris Nemtsov’s murder mean for Russia and Europe’s security? A few years ago I met Nemtsov at an event in Geneva.  Unfailingly courteous, even self-deprecating, he was highly-intelligent and offered a fascinating glimpse into a better Russia, a different Russia.  Indeed, my impressions of the man and his ideas suggested that his great country still had a real chance of transitioning from autocracy to democracy, and through that transition, Europe could finally become whole, free, and at peace. 

Sadly, all that Nemtsov stood for was blown away on Friday by four bullets in his back - the cynical act of that other, all-too cynical Russia.  Many are blaming President Putin.  However, this is simply not his style, and is in any case far too close to home.  Why murder a leading opposition figure on the approach road to the Kremlin?  It is pure speculation on my part but it is more likely to have been the deed of the now-multiple ultra-nationalist groups that stalk Russian politics.  Well to the right of even President Putin such groups have tentacles that reach far into the so-called Siloviki, the security apparatchiks who run an increasingly powerful security state.  

The other day I had dinner with Putin opponent Mikhail Khordokovsky, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linus Linkevicius, Slovak Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak, former Swedish Prime and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, and NATO Deputy Secretary-General Alexander Vershbow. Now, I am not at liberty to reveal the content of our discussion (and I will not).  However, I was struck by Khordokovsky’s concern for and about his Motherland.  Indeed, having listened to Khordokovsky I tore up my prepared remarks and put it bluntly to the gathered dignitaries; Europe’s strategic vacation is over, all the comforting self-absorbed assumptions about peace, stability and security we Europeans have clung to since the end of the Cold War will be torn up over the next decade…and Russia will do much of the tearing.

You might say my motivation was fairly obvious given the tragedy in Ukraine.  However, I was also driven to speak by the unworldliness of Western European politicians in particular.  Too many of them seem to believe that what is happening TO Russia, and what is happening IN Ukraine, is unfortunate, but remains a side-show to the ‘real’ issues of debt and ‘Europe-building’.  In fact, what is happening in Russia is extremely dangerous and concerns us all.  This weekend here in the Netherlands Gary Kasparov, the former Russian chess master, said that President Putin regards the West as weak and divided. He is of course right.  However, what is not understood is just how weak and divided Russia is itself, and just how dangerous such divisions are for Europe’s security. 

When he started his third term in office in 2012 President Putin set out to fulfil three parallel and connected strategic missions: to centralise power on the President’s office via the National Security Council; to marginalise all opposition to his rule; and to re-establish Russian influence over the states on Russia’s so-called ‘near abroad’, be they EU/NATO members or not.  Most commentators have assumed that the primary mission is the re-establishment of Russia’s influence over its ‘near abroad’.  In fact, President Putin is using that mission, and the appeal to nostalgic Russian patriotism it generates, to justify absolute control over the sprawling Russian state apparatus and, by extension, Russian society.  To President Putin the need for a stable Russia on his terms is far more important than a free Russia on our terms.

It is in that context that Nemtsov and his supporters have been portrayed as a threat to the Kremlin, because Nemtsov espoused the kind of European civil society which would see a Russia emerge that would indeed be on our liberal democratic terms.  It should be noted that in Ukraine Maidan was triggered by an EU agreement, not a NATO agreement.  

However, for all his concerns about Nemtsov and his ilk he is equally concerned about forces to his political right and the ultra-nationalist movements which could tear Russia apart, and by extension Europe, if they ever gained power.  Not versed in political reform as other Europeans would know it Putin sees the greatest danger to Russia as the ‘chaos’ that would emerge if a power struggle were to break out into the open between liberals and ultra-nationalists.  In that light Putin sees the focusing of power on himself as a move to stabilise Russia and thus prevent Russian fracturing under the triple pressures of nationalism, globalisation and Europeanisation.

Therefore, Nemtsov’s assassination is clearly a function of the very profound tensions that exist at the heart of Russian politics and society, and such tensions are likely to get worse. President Putin has manoeuvred himself into a political dead-end.  He offers Russians no political vision, no political development, and no political evolution which would over time help ease such tensions and create a Russia with state institutions of sufficient strength to cope with pluralism.  Rather, he is trying to divert such tensions by appealing to Russian nationalism, wrapping himself in the Russian flag, and by centralising all power on himself and using an assertive displacement policy.  Consequently, Putin himself has nowhere to go but more of the same assertive displacement policy.  If he fails Putin will be swept aside by the tides of change that are indeed boiling away below the surface of the Russian body politic.   Putin’s ‘strategy’ may not make sense to many strategically-illiterate western European politicians.  However, it makes ‘perfect’ Russian sense to the Baltic states, and indeed all states across Central and Eastern Europe who have ‘benefitted’ from past Russian rule.

Contrast all of the above with the utterances of last week of British Prime Minister David Cameron.  Amidst growing and justified concerns about further cuts to British defence spending (and blatant attempts by Downing Street to shut down any defence debate prior to the May general election) Cameron assured the British people that the UK can defend itself against the Russians.  That is precisely NOT the point, Dave, and you know it.  The real issue is whether the British armed forces will be able to fulfil their treaty commitments to NATO and provide critical forward deterrence to Britain’s allies. Today, the answer is just about yes. Any more defence cuts to the British defence budget and the answer will be an emphatic no as Britain effectively ceases to be a major power (see my new paperback – Little Britain? Twenty-First Century Strategy for a Middling European Power.  www.amazon.com)

Here’s the strategic cruncher. President Putin is looking at NATO anchor-states such as Britain to see if they have the resolve to contain him.  Indeed, if I want to be really provocative (and why not) I would suggest that in the absence of any meaningful strategic partnership Putin NEEDS the West to contain him so he can concentrate on consolidating power in Russia, and in his very narrow terms maintain political stability therein.  However, as Gary Kasparov pointed out, Putin certainly does not believe countries like Britain, or indeed any other European state, are up to the strategic task he has set them.  Sadly, I have to agree with President Putin.

So, will the murder of Boris Nemtsov be seen one day as Putin’s nemesis?  No.  However, it reveals a Russia that combines immense, over-centralised power with dangerous instability. And, if what is happening in and to Russia is not seen through the cold light of political realism Putin’s Russia could one day be the nemesis of us all.

Wake up!

Julian Lindley-French

Immigration, Society & Security

Alphen, Netherlands. 27 February. The purpose of this blog is hard analysis. That means I must regularly foray into areas of policy and consequence that Establishments would prefer remained cloaked in official secrecy, often to hide the mess politicians have made.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the relationship between immigration, societal cohesion and security.  For too long the British Government has stuck its head in the sand and pretended that no such relationship exists.  Indeed, I witnessed myself the bizarre spectacle of British troops fighting in Afghanistan to keep Islamism at ‘strategic distance’, even as an 80% surge took place in immigration to Britain over the same 2001-2014 period from some of the most conservative parts of the Islamic world. This disconnect between immigration policy and security policy has led to a profound loss of balance in British policy and strategy, most notably in the balance of investments made in to protect society and project British influence and power.  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Armed Forces have been starved of resources to fund the domestic intelligence and counter-terrorism efforts.  The result is the most unbalanced British foreign and security policy ever, and an accelerated and exaggerated British retreat from influence.  Three events this week highlight the extent to which immigration ‘policy’ is in various ways distorting British security policy – the unmasking of ‘Jihadi John’, the latest immigration figures, and a poll of British Muslims.

The revelation that so-called Jihadi John is in fact a British Muslim called Mohammed Emwazi highlights the dark side of immigration.  Born in Kuwait in 1988 he came to Britain aged six and seems to have been radicalised by an Islamist group in West London.  His profile is similar to that of a lot of British jihadis, a first-generation immigrant from a difficult region who seems to have had difficulty identifying with the norms and values of British liberal society.  Such immigrants in many ways import the challenges of their home region into their adopted country, as evidenced by the worrying growth in anti-Semitism in Britain, which the left-leaning BBC, for example, refuses to identify as a problem that is almost overwhelmingly associated with British Muslims.

The second ‘event’ is the release of the latest immigration figures for the year up to February 2015.  Net migration last year was 289,000, the highest figure for over a decade.  Indeed, some 654,000 people moved to Britain from both within the EU, and from without the EU over the last year.  In other words, a city the size of Manchester came to the UK over the past year.  Now, the massive bulk of that immigration is a good thing as many are students and most come to take up jobs.  Indeed, 62% of all immigrants to London have a degree, and given that Britain is Europe’s most globalised economy such immigration is vital for the economy. 

However, such mass-immigration also has profound security implications which government must confront and too often does not.  Rather, the political class seems to have given up on the need for secure immigration.  Last night on the BBC senior figures from the three leading political parties all shifted from the need to ensure secure immigration to espousing the benefits of mass-immigration come –who-may.  This political shift away from secure immigration is evident in the current election campaign, which is perhaps the strangest on record.  Indeed, whilst the public want to talk about immigration mainstream politicians do not and in alliance with liberal media have in effect shut the debate down.  The man who currently runs Britain, Cameron’s Australian campaign manager Lynton Crosby, even forbade any senior Conservative from yesterday defending what is by any standards an appalling failure of government policy.  Yes, immigration certainly helps the British economy grow, but the greatest threat to British security, and indeed societal cohesion, is also a function of mass immigration.

However, a third event this week put the whole issue of immigration, society and security in perspective.  A poll of 1000 British Muslims conducted by ComRes found that 95% of British Muslims polled felt loyalty to Britain, something I have seen first-hand when dealing with British Muslim Servicemen.  And, 93% of British Muslims polled believe Muslims should obey British laws.  These figures really challenge those in society who believe the problem is Islam per se. 

However, 46% believed Muslims were prejudiced against in Britain, and 78% were offended by published images of the Prophet (which is why out of respect I refused to re-tweet such an image in the immediate aftermath of the Paris attacks).  Moreover, 11% of those polled felt sympathy for those who want to fight against Western interests, 32% were not surprised by the Paris attacks, whilst 27% had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks, and 20% believed Islam and Western liberal society would never be compatible. 

The number of Muslims living in Britain is some 3 million and growing.  Therefore, in February 2015 some 330,000 British Muslims felt some sympathy for those who want to fight against Western interests, 960,000 were not surprised by the Paris attacks, 600,000 believe Islam would never be compatible with Western liberal society, and 810,000 British Muslims felt some sympathy for the Paris attacks. By any standards this is a significant cohort of society that is in some way fundamentally at odds with the rest of society.  Indeed, if one assumes (for the sake of argument) that, of those 330,000 who felt some sympathy with the Paris attacks, 5% are actively engaged in promoting extremism some 16500 British people are actively plotting to attack fellow Britons and the British state. 

What are the policy implications?  First, there is no point in nostalgia.  Like many Britons I am horrified that politicians have allowed this situation to develop. However, the focus must now be on long-term policies that promote integration, instead of the disastrous multiculturalism which simply generated mutually-uncomprehending ghettos.  Second, respect and tolerance are vital weapons in this struggle.  Respect must be shown to Islam, which is now an integral part of British society, and tolerance shown to all those British Muslims who practice their faith within the framework of British laws.  Third, all forms of fundamentalism must be rooted out and exposed, as must the racism and hatred it seems to generate in a not-inconsiderable-part of the non-Muslim community.  Fourth, government needs to get its own house in order.  Too often politically-correct junior officials have thwarted attempts to block extremists and their efforts to radicalise young, vulnerable people.  For example, none of the sixteen recommendations made by a leading counter-terror expert to combat extremism in Birmingham schools has been implemented.  Fifth, counter-terrorism must not de-stabilise British foreign and security policy.  Britain can only exert its rightful influence as the world’s fifth largest economy and fifth most powerful defence actor across the strategic landscape with balanced policy, strategy and structure, and that is clearly not the case today.  Finally, British politicians must once-and-for-all confront the relationship that clearly exists between immigration policy and security policy and not simply run away from it as being politically inconvenient, and/or too difficult. 

Yes, Britain will and must change, but if such change is dangerous and goes unchecked sooner or later it will tear the country apart.  Therefore, it is vital that those who come to live in Britain share at least the core values of a Western liberal democracy.  Those that do not must not come, and ensuring that is an issue of sound government policy and practice.  The alternative is a British society that becomes a dangerous incubator of terror, led by wishful-thinking politicians, which is a threat not just to itself, but to others. The British people, non-Muslim and Muslim, have a right to expect more than that from their leaders.

Julian Lindley-French