Westminster: A Small Village in London

I’ve just finished reading John Le Carre’s entertaining spy thriller, A Small Town in Germany. This story takes place in Bonn in the 1960s and concerns the joyless workings of the British Consulate at a time when Britain was desperately trying to gain entry to the exclusive European Common Market.

Battered by post war austerity and the humiliations of Suez, Le Carre accurately captures the sense of national decline that afflicted Britain at the time and the fear that that Britain risked being left outside a more united and prosperous Europe. With Europe yet again dominating the news, A Small Time in Germany, is a useful reminder that our membership of the EU has always been an accounting exercise rather than an affair of the heart. We’ve always been an awkward partner.

One of the reasons why the European question has become so pointed in recent years is the prevailing feeling that the political costs of membership outweigh the economic benefits. A key argument deployed by Nigel Lawson in his article in The Times last week was that Britain urgently needs new sources of economic growth and that Europe is unlikely to provide them. Europe is seen as over regulated and inwardly focused. The rules of membership of the single market are seen as an unnecessary Gallic break on economic competitiveness.

This is new territory.

The European debate has moved beyond the all too familiar debates about national sovereignty to the question of Britain’s long term economic survival. Political questions about Europe’s democratic deficit still exist but they have been joined by economic concerns about its competiveness and whether current arrangements best serve Britain’s economic national interest.

It is perhaps the combination of these two variables that makes the current European debate so politically toxic and problematic for Cameron. In the past, the hostility of British political classes to foreign encroachments on judicial, parliamentary or governmental sovereignty were always kept in check by the enthusiasm they showed for economic internationalism by championing the single market and EU enlargement.This bargain has always been fragile at the best times, as illustrated by the budget debates of the 1980s, but since the economic slump of 2008 the bargain is fast unravelling.

Eurosceptism is now part of the political mainstream in a way that it never was in the 1980s or 1990s.Back bench rebellions on Europe were rare events 20 years ago. Now they are common place. Slowly but surely the possibility of British withdrawal is being normalised. It is not enough that the EU Act places acts as an emergency brake on future transfers of power and sovereignty to Brussels, Britain wants and demands, or so we are led to believe, a renegotiated settlement.

Paradoxically these rebellions and the emerging political discourse on Europe have been legitimated by Cameron himself. Right from the outset the vision of Cameron and Hague for 21st century foreign policy is one in which Britain sits pragmatically as a hub nation in the centre of a lattice-work of flexible, overlapping networks. With dire public finances and anaemic growth, there is no room for grandiose imperial schemes such as remaking the world in Europe’s image.

It always strikes me when travelling in Europe, not least to Brussels, that people just don’t understand the uniqueness of the British debate here. They assume that British Eurosceptism is at heart a variant of the nasty angry nationalism that stalks minority parties in Europe. There is certainly an English flavour to the debate, that I suspect reflects a deeper disgruntlement with devolution, and yet, I’ve loads of friends who would consider themselves to be liberal metropolitan types but who are deep dyed Eurosceptics.

This isn’t to say that the modern British Eurosceptism isn’t without its contradictions and tensions. As a I keep remideing my Eurosceptic friends and colleagues, you can’t have a single free trade area, open markets and undistorted competition in Europe without supra-national regulators to police competition, state aid payments and non-tariff barriers.

Similarly the populist appeal for some parts of the political Eurosceptic agenda seems a little misplaced when it would result in lower social protection and employment rights. It stills surprises me that deregulation minded Eurosceptics claim that they are representing the honest yeoman of Britain fed up with Brussels meddling when they are essentially advocating supply side measures most favoured by business or employers federations.

The more pressing question here is surely why Germany – bound by the same EU employment, social and environmental rules that supposedly hold Britain back – is a champion at selling to China? If the only way we can compete internationally is by winning the race to the bottom then we really are in a sorry mess.

Im always struck when people say we have culturally more in common with our trans-Atlantic friends than our friends across the channel. But let’s face it, when it comes to attitudes to religion, gun ownership, capital punishment, social welfare, the environment or the desirability of free, universal public healthcare, we are more European than we realise.

The problem at present is that these tensions and contradictions within the Eurosceptic discourse remain hidden due to the on-going political debate about the mechanics of any referendum. We might all agree that we don’t like present arrangements – and lets be honest we aren’t the only Europeans to feel this way – but we have yet to start teasing out what political and economic arrangements would work best, let alone how we might realise them through negotiations.

The optimist in me welcomes the opportunity provided by an in-out referendum to have an honest debate about the costs and benefits of membership that moves away from tabloid populism. The UK’s first referendum on Europe in 1975 belongs to another time and another generation and it is perhaps only right that the democratic consensus underpinning our membership is tested. The pessimist in me worries, however, it is already too late to have a cool, rational debate on EU membership as hostility to Europe is now so well entrenched.

Lines in the sand in Syria

Just when you thought that things couldn’t get worse in Syria, credible evidence surfaces indicating that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. With President Obama having previously stated that their use would be a game changer, it is difficult not to conclude that the international community’s engagement with Syria is entering a critical stage. What then are we to make of the use of Sarin gas in Syria and how should the international community respond?

It is all too easy in our shock and horror at the use of chemical weapons to overlook what their usage signifies. Chemical and biological weapons are never the weapons of choice. They are blunt and indiscriminate and are designed both to inflict death on its victims but also to send a message of terror to others. In the case of Syria it signals that the regime cannot rely on conventional military means to secure its own survival.

With much of the Sunni dominated Syrian army confined to barracks, the regime lacks the necessary conventional instruments to regain territory lost to the rebels and has become ever more reliant on non-conventional military means. Talk of tipping points can often be over played, but the use of chemical weapons in Syria should be taken as a sign of regime weakness rather than strength. Their use signifies that the regime is becoming increasingly desperate and willing to challenge, if not cross, the boundaries of what is considered acceptable behavior in warfare.

Despite all the talk of ‘red lines’ being crossed, it remains important following the build up to the Second Iraq War that the claims of chemical weapons use be investigated. The existing evidence might be credible but it needs to be verified independently. The UN team of experts tasked with investigating these claims is currently stranded in Cyprus, denied entry by Damascus. This is clearly an unacceptable situation and one that the UN must address with all urgency. Regardless of whatever the US decides to do over the short term, it is important that data be collected and analysed and if verified charges laid that sees the perpetrators brought to justice at a future date.

It is important that the US deals with Syria on its own terms. President Obama must not allow himself to be bounced into action on Syria merely to prove to Israel that he is serious about defending the red line with Iran. In the first instance, Obama needs to use the allegations of Assad’s chemical use to re-engage diplomatically with Russia and China. More than anything, the diplomatic stand-off between the US and Russia has helped fuel the conflict in Syria. With Russia also declaring that the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a red line, a rare opportunity exists to develop through the UN a unified international front. Even if Russia is not yet ready to withdraw its support for Assad, it is in its interests that the regime’s chemical and biological arsenal are locked down and placed under some form of UN stewardship.

It would be all too easy in this instance to escape the charge of passivity by providing lethal military assistance to kosher Syrian rebels via the Syrian National Council. That, I suspect, would be a dangerous and treacherous road to venture down. There are good reasons why Western governments have balked at this option in the past, and, despite the softening in position by France and the UK to this option, Assad’s resort to chemical weapons doesn’t change the original logic. The arming of more moderate rebels on the ground will do nothing to impede Assad’s use of non-conventional weapons and might even accelerate their use. Discussion about arming the moderate rebels is an unhelpful distraction.

None of this is to say that the US should not send a clear signal to the Assad regime that further transgressions will not be tolerated. Deploying additional ground forces to Jordan and placing more armed and sea power in the region might serve as a useful deterrent. Yet if such a deployment does occur then the US and its allies must be willing to use them if Assad calls their bluff.

When aid works and why

In my last blog, We CAN end poverty by 2015, I wrote about the G8 religious leader’s letter that appeared in the Financial Times to mark the 1000 day count down to the Millennium Development Goals.

This letter was picked up widely by other media outlets both here in the UK and further afield. For the most part the media reaction was fair and balanced.

The one exception was the coverage offered by Britain’s dearly beloved Daily Mail. It decided to run a story accusing the signatories of political naivety in claiming that development aid is working.

A close inspection of the letter reveals no such claim. The letter argues instead that development is working even if challenges remain. Such misreporting is hardly news worthy these days, especially when it comes from the Daily Mail, but it is disengenious nontheless.

Despite my gripe with the Daily Mail, I was encouraged to see the Archbishop of Canterbury respond in his blog, last Friday, to what the Daily Mail thought the letter claimed. The Archbishop’s blog, When aid works and why, is worth reading and is copied below.

When aid works and why

“Last weekend a group of religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Westminster and me, wrote a letter urging G8 nations to stick to their targets on foreign aid. Some have opposed this call by suggesting that most aid money gets wasted or sucked up by corruption, and that developing countries are much better helped by growing trade.

These criticisms are important and at one level I don’t dispute them. Economic growth is undeniably the key to removing nations from poverty. In fact I have been and continue to be involved in seeking to promote trade with Nigeria – especially from areas of deprivation in the UK – for this very reason. At the same time, no one can deny the existence of corruption and the fact that money has been wasted as a result. This is why, in our letter, we backed Britain’s call for national governments to be more transparent.

But so often the critics ignore the many instances where aid truly works – especially in vulnerable conflict and post-conflict situations. Certainly that was what I saw during more than a decade of working in Africa.

When money is put in the hands of faith-based and civil society networks, it can be utterly transformative. Because these organisations are highly accountable, very little money is lost to corruption. Local clergy know exactly what their communities need and how to spend funds wisely.

During decades of war in Sudan, the Episcopal Church of Sudan led a teaching programme to ensure that children continued to receive some kind of education – often under trees in the countryside. Since 2007, they have received around £3.4 million of UK Aid funds which they have used to train thousands of teachers. With less than one per cent of girls in South Sudan completing secondary education, it’s hard to overstate the importance of this work.

One example from my personal experience illustrates the big difference that a local priest can make.

When I was Dean of Liverpool, the Cathedral supported a priest with a gift of $5,000. He spent this on training in reconciliation which helped transform the divided community he worked in. Every cent was accounted for, and the impact was significant. Scale that up across a country and it may be a few millions, but it will transform. Add some equally targeted money for local education in church schools, training for farmers, basic equipment – and you change a society.

I too object to any wastage of taxpayers’ money. When our troops were sent into Sierra Leone in 2000, they were of course enormously effective in helping sort out a crisis. But a military initiative of that kind costs millions of taxpayers’ money. Far smaller sums, invested earlier, have enabled nations to avoid conflict, and hence avoid the costs and dangers of sending in our armed forces.

I always think it’s like the difference between vaccinating someone and treating the full-blown disease. Skipping the injection may save you three pounds per person, but the moment they start getting rushed through the hospital doors that amount starts multiplying many times over.

Not all aid is good, but not all aid is dead. The way it is delivered may indeed be an issue, but the principle should not be.

That’s why ultimately these criticisms fail to satisfy me – either on an ethical level, or on a practical, value-for-money level. They ignore the transformative impact that aid can and does have in fragile countries struggling to meet basic human needs – an impact which can transform local communities and help all of us in the long run.”

We CAN end poverty by 2015

Today 80 religious leaders from around the G8, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, have marked the 1000 day count down to the Millennium Development Goals.

In a letter to the Financial Times , that is reproduced on the Lambeth Palace website, the religious leaders from across the faith traditions draw attention to the fact that we have a moral responsibility to deliver on the MDGs and that the right decisions taken at the G8 Summit in June 2013 can accelerate that process. Many of them have also taken to twitter (#1000DaysToGo) to raise awareness of this date and the need for all us of to accelerate our efforts to securing the goals by the end of 2015.

The letter is timely coming as it does in the same week as the OECD reported that development aid across the OECD fell by 4% in real terms in 2012, following a 2% fall in 2011. The continuing financial crisis and euro zone turmoil has led several governments to tighten their budgets. This has had a direct impact on aid to poor countries. We need to reverse this trend if aid is to play its part in helping achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Here in Britain we should be proud that at a time when we need to rebalance our own economy, the Chancellor has committed the government to spending 0.7% of GDP on aid. In a world where one in eight people go to bed hungry we have an obligation to help. British aid helps feed hungry people and save lives in Africa, Asia and beyond. Other governments need to follow Britain’s lead.

It remains true though that while development aid is an important ingredient in tackling global poverty, it is no silver bullet. More money is lost to developing countries in tax evasion than is received in aid. The 80 signatories are wise to this reality and call on the G8 to look at ways in which it can strengthen the capacity of developing countries to collect taxes from multi-nationals.

What stands out in this expertly crafted letter is less the specific policy recommendations, welcome though they are, but the way the religious leaders remind us all, governments and citizens alike, that in addition to providing for the well being of our own societies, we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level. Only by so doing will we start to lay the foundations for a more peaceful, prosperous and just world.

Thirteen years on from the start of the Millennium the values and principles that drive these goals are timeless and universal. We must not allow the financial crisis of recent years to narrow our moral horizons or to reduce our hunger and thirst for justice. Nor should we allow ongoing talk of what ought to replace these goals in 2015 to absolve us from the promises that were made at the start of the Millennium. Absolution doesn’t work that way.

Much has been achieved over the last 13 years – the number of people living in extreme poverty has been halved ahead of time and 14,000 fewer children die each day than in 1990. Development is working – don’t let the naysayers tell you otherwise – but we do need to accelerate our efforts if we are to realise the 8 goals by the end of 2015.

If nothing else, lets hope that today’s letter from 80 religious leaders helps to sharpen political attention and public engagement on the road ahead. You can help this effort by adding your voice on Twitter using #1000DaysToGo

Obama’s Visit to Israel

How I pity those responsible for organizing Obama’s visit to Israel this week.

Not only is this his first visit to Israel as President, it is his first foreign visit as a second term President. In a region rife in symbolism and in a land where symbols are themselves contested every part of the President’s visit will be scrutinized for meaning.

What are we meant to make of the President visiting the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, but not the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem? What message is the President trying to convey by visiting a mobile missile defense battery, albeit not one in the field?

To be fair, any Presidential visit to Israel is going to be high-profile at the best of times. This time around, however, there is heightened speculation about whether Obama will use his second term to lead from the front in reviving the peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

My own guess is that he won’t, but that he will try do just enough to ensure that the window of opportunity on a two state solution doesn’t close on his Presidential watch. John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, might be given a longer leash than his predecessor to engage in shuttle diplomacy, but unless a diplomatic breakthrough looks likely the President won’t get personally involved.

It’s important to remember that even in last year’s televised Presidential debates on foreign policy, foreign policy didn’t feature. In his State of the Union speech earlier this year, Obama signaled that now was the time to engage in nation building at home rather than abroad. Even before Obama’s pivot to the East, America’s growing energy sufficiency signaled a declining strategic importance of the Middle East in US foreign policy.

Netanyahu might have announced a new coalition government late last week, but it is such an unstable coalition that further elections shouldn’t be ruled out. Israel and its politicians remain in electioneering rather than peace making mode. Although 70 percent of Israeli’s say they believe in a two state solution, the same number of Israeli’s believe they won’t see it in their lifetime. A grand unilateral gesture by Netanyahu is not a far-fetched possibility but it is unlikely.

A closer look at the recent elections signaled that for most Israeli’s the political priority is to address the rising cost of living and the growing levels of inequality. Securing a peace with the Palestinians didn’t feature in the elections. From a foreign policy perspective the faltering Arab Spring, the potential spill over from Syria and the existential threat posed by a nuclear Iran all take precedent over relaunching a Middle East Peace Process.

The more pressing and prescient question is whether Obama will be able to keep the window of opportunity sufficiently open on a two state solution to stop others calling time on it. The growth of new settlements and the rising tide of violence in the West Bank, which a number of analysts have signalled as the start of the Third Intifada, all indicate how fragile and untenable the status quo has become and herein lies the political dilemma for Obama – managing the conflict is fast becoming as difficult a challenge as resolving it. No wonder Obama’s aides are going to great lengths to manage expectations ahead of the visit.

Syria in the shadow of Iraq

After two years of a bloody civil war in Syria the frustration in finding a diplomatic solution is seeing a number of governments openly talking about arming the more moderate elements of the Syrian opposition. With over 70,000 deaths to date and with UNHCR predicting that the number of refugees might triple to 3 million by the end of the year this frustration is understandable, but is arming the Syrian opposition the right response?

The case for arming the opposition isn’t just informed by ethical considerations but also by strategic concerns.

The asymmetry between Syrian government forces and opposition groups has created a paralyzing stalemate which has inflicted huge civilian suffering. The various reports out this week by Save the Children and UNICEF show in all too graphic detail the true cost of the conflict. To stand idly by when innocents are being killed is not an option, especially when others such as Russia and Iran are actively arming the regime. This isn’t Iraq 2003, but Iraq 1991 when civilians with Western encouragement rose up against the regime only to be left to fend for themselves.

With the diplomatic process stuck in the long grass due to the self-serving obstructionist policies of Russia and China some form of intervention to redress the imbalance is legitimate. Since putting boots on the ground is not an option politically, arming the Syrian opposition becomes the default option. Given that the Syrian army’s strength is now half what it was at the start of the conflict arming the opposition could well tip the balance and break the back of the regime.

Strategically, the longer the conflict persists the more violent it is likely to become and the greater the possibility that it will become a magnet for extremist groups. It follows then that we have a responsibility to safeguard the stability of the wider region and indeed to protect our own vital national interests.

The combination of both humanitarian and strategic concerns is powerful, but even the most ardent humanitarian hawk will have reservations about arming the opposition. For a start, who exactly would we be arming and what would we be arming them with?

The opposition is not a clearly defined and coherent homogenous group. It is highly fragmented and essentially local in nature. With the civil war attracting jihadists from around the region how do we distinguish between radical and more moderate groups? With the opposition fragmenting every day, there is a very real possibility of clashes between different elements of the insurgency. Would we be seeking to arm moderate rebels against the regime or against jihadist groups, or both?

Nor should we kid ourselves that even those who we consider to be ‘moderate’ have not been involved in atrocities against the regime. Such a black and white picture doesn’t fit with reports emanating from the region. The idea that in arming rebel groups we could encourage their greater self-discipline is fanciful.

Nor should we be deaf to the lessons of Libya where we are still dealing with the consequences of our decision to arm local militia. Many of the armaments we supplied in Libya have now turned up in the wrong hands in Mali.

A decision to arm the rebels would represent a significant departure from existing policy. There were good reasons why Western governments balked at the idea of supplying anything other than non-lethal military assistance. Has the situation changed so significantly over the last few months to justify such a reversal?

These are legitimate concerns and while there is a strong case for arming the rebels, these concerns need to be addressed before any decision is reached. Such a decision would also need to have wider ownership both domestically and internationally. A decision by France, the UK and the USA to supply arms without the support of a broader Western coalition risks disrupting the already fragile consensus on Syria and in turn intensifying geopolitical risks.

I’ve Got Georgia on My Mind

For the last few weeks I’ve had Georgia on my mind – not the 1930 song by Hoag Carmichael and Stuart Gorrell made famous by Ray Charles in 1960, but the sovereign county in the Caucuses that is located at the crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern Europe.

I was fortunate enough to travel to Georgia for a week back in January with the Bishop of Wakefield, the Rt Revd Stephen Platten. For the bishop, whose relationship with Georgia stretches back some 21 odd years, the visit was an opportunity to catch up with friends and acquaintances while exploring with key Government interlocutors the implications of the October 2012 elections.

The elections ushered in a strange period of political cohabitation in Georgia. Constitutionally political power is vested with the Office of President, but the new constitution that comes into force in October 2013 transfers political power to the Office of Prime Minister. In the recent Parliamentary elections, President Mikahail Saakasvili’s United National Movement lost out to Georgian Dream headed by Bidzinia Ivanishvili who has now become Prime Minister.

In view of Georgia’s turbulant past there is concern that Saakasvili’s might yet exercise his constitutional powers to dismiss the newly formed government. This scenario is, I suspect, a little unrealistic, not least because it would inflict a fatal blow on Saakasvili’s European credentials, but in a political system where trust is in short supply, political cohabitation is proving very taxing. Conspiracies abound.

If Georgia can succeed in finding a way through this chapter in its history then it could well become a model for the region. For this to happen all sides need to show compromise and restraint. The President needs to abide by the terms of the new constitution, while the Prime Minister needs to resist from using the courts to pursue political vendettas against past officials. All parties need to get on with the business of government.

Despite the progress that Georgia has made since independence in 1991 the country is beset by problems. The instability of the North Caucuses is a security problem for both Georgia and Russia. Yet, policies pursued by Georgia in the past appear purposefully designed to irritate Russia. Tension between Russia and Georgia are not structural or existential, but the result of misguided policies and clashing personalities.

It is to be hoped that Ivanishvili has the diplomatic acumen to steer a more creative path of constructive engagement with Russia while not compromising Georgia’s European aspirations.

A good place to start would be with a revision to Georgia’s National Security Strategy of January 2012 which gives the impression that Georgia is an innocent victim of long standing Russian imperialism. This narrative forecloses the possibility of improving bilateral relationship with Russia. With the Russian market currently closed to Georgia this is a costly economic position to take.

Even with the forthcoming constitutional changes Georgia’s political system encourages the cult of personality. There is no disputing the neo-classical beauty of Georgia’s Parliament, but its location in Kutaisi, a 3 hour drive from the capital Tbilisi, underlines how peripheral the Parliament is to Georgian politics. The decision to move the Parliament from the capital reflects the old guard’s anxiety that the Parliament could become the focus of political and civil unrest.

The lack of effective parliamentary checks and balances on Georgia’s governing class is disconcerting. The problem is compounded, however, by the very real absence of any civil society in Georgia.

Where civil society organisations do exist they tend to be Western financed rather than indigenous with a firm focus on engaging with the governing class rather than mediating the relationship between the state and the individual. In reality they operate more as private consulting companies or think thanks than a means through which legitimate popular grievances can be surfaced and addressed. There are important lessons to be learnt here for Western Governments.

The exception to the rule is the Georgian Orthodox Church which sadly through no fault of its own dominates the political landscape. Prior to the Soviet era, the Church was one of the few non-communist institutions and as such it became a gathering point for those who sought independence. It remains to this day the most trusted institution in Georgia and is a powerful opinion maker.

Regretfully, however, religion and nationalism has become too closely linked in Georgia. Religious rhetoric can often push citizens towards intolerance. Rather than helping to widen the public space, the Georgian Orthodox Church can often unwittingly promote an exclusionary narrative. To be Georgian is to be Christian and not just any old Christian but a Georgian Orthodox Christian. The dominance of this narrative is especially problematic for religious minorities, especially Georgia’s Muslim population.

For reasons such as these, Georgia remains a country in transition. Whatever our own preoccupations in the West, we have a responsibility to encourage and nudge Georgia, its politicians and its citizens, to continue its journey. In the uncertain months ahead, it is important that we all keep Georgia on our mind.