Hague’s Assured Debut

William Hague must finally be relishing his ascent to the near-top of British politics, when all of a sudden, a crisis drops into his lap. The crisis off the Gaza Strip presents a considerable challenge to the new government, and Hague well knows it. Despite being something of a veteran in British politics, he is the most junior member at the table of the international community, and yet he is deterred from inaction by Britain’s history and relationship with Israel, to say nothing of the attitude of voters and the press to the situation.

“Mr Speaker, the events aboard the flotilla were very serious and have captured the world’s attention. However, they should not be viewed in isolation. They arise from the unacceptable and unsustainable situation in Gaza, which is a cause of public concern here in the UK and around the world.”

Hague’s statement in the Commons today was a highly competent one. It was informative – of both facts known to the Government but not in the public domain and the British response to the crisis. Plenty of factors are at play, but Hague met the foremost requirement – to provide information on the welfare of the British citizens involved – consummately. The rest of his statement was equally interesting.

Calm Seas

“Our goal is a process which ensures full accountability for the events which occurred and which commands the confidence of the international community, including international participation.”

An outright attack on Israel would be unthinkable and counter-productive. The circumstances that are currently known do not suggest that Israel was totally to blame, or unjustified in intercepting the flotilla, which makes the Government’s push for an inquiry the most practical response to the crisis.

Hague’s first priority, now that the British citizens involved are apparently out of danger, should be to calm matters. Certain elements of the Obama Administration popularised the aphorism ‘never waste a crisis,’ when discussing their immediate plans to deal with the American economy in 2009. In this situation, Foreign Ministers should be wary of overplaying their hand. The potential for War is never totally to be  written off when talking of Israel, and methinks Turkey doth protest too much (see 1625) in this instance;

“This action, totally contrary to the principles of international law, is inhumane state terrorism. Nobody should think we will keep quiet in the face of this.”

Turkey’s government, facing an election against a newly-selected secularist candidate soon, is keen to play up its Islamist credentials, and though it would appear to have nothing to gain from a war with Israel, the situation in Gaza could be inflamed and other parties – perhaps not States – brought into an armed conflict.

If Hague had discussed his statement with the Prime Minister – we must hope that he did, although one gets the impression that he enjoys Cameron’s implicit confidence – he will almost certainly have been encouraged to keep the domestic situation in mind. That does not mean solely the appeasement of the liberal media (and coalition partners), but Cameron’s One Nation Toryism will have advised that Britain’s Muslims could very easily be isolated socially and politically if Israel were to be given a whitewash.

One must also bear in mind that if there was to be a backlash from this, it may well come in the form of a terrorist campaign, and Britain is by no means immune from criticism of its role in relation to Palestine.

Britain’s Goal

Although it tries to regulate itself through international law, corporate bodies and rotating presidencies, the international community is a chaotic place, in which roles are very much up for grabs. It was therefore welcome to hear that Angela Merkel had been advocating that “everything must be done in this difficult situation to ensure that there is no escalation.”

Hague’s lack of relationships at the international level precludes this role, but his part, as with many others, has been to urge a resolution to the situation of the blockade, which he described as ‘an essential part of the viable Palestinian state that I hope will one day live alongside Israel in peace and security.’ Hague gave a good account of the harm that has been done to Israel by their own actions;

“As the once productive private sector has been decimated and ordinary Gazans have lost their jobs and their incomes, it is tunnel entrepreneurs and their Hamas backers who benefit.

“Hamas now has near total control of the economy. Other groups, even more radical and violent, are finding a place amid the misery and frustration felt by a generation of young people. In this context, current Israeli restrictions are counterproductive for Israel’s long term security.”

These moves have apparently been discussed with Hilary Clinton, and it will be important that the Americans voice their desire to see movement in the peace process, but the real mission is two-fold. If any movement is to be achieved, Israel will have to be a willing partner in it, which precludes any criticism or fundamental surrender of security that could foster a siege mentality. There should therefore be an internationally co-ordinated and observed plan to allow Israel to supervise aid coming into Gaza, as it enters in return for greater amounts of aid. Self-righteousness will not allay any concerns that Israel will have for the security of its citizens.

The second object of British policy should be to strengthen the moderate Palestinian elements that have been eclipsed in the stand-off between Israel and Gaza. Regrettably, there is no magic formula for reviving them, so the opportunity presented by criticism of Israel should also be used to attack Hamas where possible. It was welcome that Hague did so in his statement;

“The House should not forget the role played by Hamas in this conflict. They continue to pursue an ideology of violence and directly to undermine prospects for peace in the region.

“Violence has continued in recent days, with rocket fire from militants in Gaza and Israeli military incursions and air strikes in response. We call on Hamas to make immediate and concrete steps towards to the quartet principles – unconditionally to release Gilad Shalit, who has been held in captivity for four years, and end its interference with the operations of NGOs and UN agencies in Gaza.”

It is of fundamental importance that instead of putting paid to the last vestiges of hope that Israel will proffer some settlement acceptable to the Palestinians and the international community, this crisis should force those involved to take note of new developments and maintain contact in order to give impetus to the pursuit of that ultimate goal. Hague’s recognition of this means that his assured debut is to be welcomed.

Full text of Hague’s Statement to the House of Commons

Uncertainty – the Line Between Aggression and Defence

It really is amazing how little is known specifically about the ‘flotilla’ and Israel’s purpose in intercepting it. It may well be a question of the prevention of terror, and it looks like provocation at best, but the chickens of Israel’s lack of proportion and indifference to international opinion in recent years are coming home to roost.

Such have been the actions of Israel’s current government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu and its previous one, led by Ehud Olmert, that Israel’s ability to credibly portray this exercise as an act of self-defence has been severely hampered.

A Steady Slide of Responsibility

Although Israel has never peacefully enjoyed the fruits of its existence, its history since 2006 has been worrying. On January 4 of that year, Ariel Sharon had a massive stroke and lapsed into the coma that he is still in to this day. Sharon had never been regarded as a liberal, but he was a canny operator who knew how to play up Israel’s vulnerabilities – often by provoking its enemies. His policy of Unilateral Withdrawal from the Gaza Strip may not have won him any new supporters, for his motives were certainly open to question, but he effectively carved out a central position in Israeli politics and left none other than Netanyahu high and dry.

Sharon’s stroke, coupled with the election of Hamas in Gaza, had the effect of enfeebling his policy. His successor, Ehud Olmert, overreacted to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah and trampled over Lebanon, perhaps its most sympathetic neighbour. The war indicated the beginning of a period in which Israel would be easily provoked and led into situations where it could be accused of disproportionate aggression It also began the separation Israel from its allies – finishing off Tony Blair’s premiership.

The Lebanon War was followed by an attack on Hamas in Gaza in 2008. Gaza was a repeat of Lebanon in terms of public reactions, though its justifications were sounder. Rocket and mortar attacks on Israel had increased by 240% on 2007 levels, but the legacy of the war in the minds of most has been the Goldstone Report, which accused both sides of war crimes, a situation which Hamas could better endure than Israel.

Olmert was forced to resign over a corruption scandal in 2009, leading to elections in which Netanyahu has been able to form a coalition. Netanyahu, a noted hawk, has made it his mission to divide the relatively sceptical President Obama from the more unquestioning pro-Israel grouping in Congress by announcing further settlement expansions, although domestic political considerations also play their part.

A Misjudged Act of Defence

The circumstances around the loss of life in the boarding of the six ships sailing from Turkey to Gaza are very murky, which is why an inquiry is right. However, the success of that inquiry will depend on how much assistance the Israelis give, and how willing they are to divulge their intelligence, which seem unlikely.

Israel says that it had been in contact with the ships for days previously and warned them to divert but in the event that they did not do so, surrounded and boarded the ships. If Israel had tried to minimise fatalities – there is some contradiction between ‘shoot to kill’ and reports of rubber bullets and stun guns – it did not try hard enough. What’s more, it appears that the flotilla was not necessarily the bunch of terrorist sympathisers that Israel had anticipated – hence their enthusiasm to deport the detainees.

Another part of the controversy is that Israel acted in international waters, and its blockade of Gaza has drawn criticism from Nick Clegg and David Miliband today. The UN has previously criticised Israel for allowing less than a quarter of the recommended humanitarian aid into Gaza, and indeed, this list of proscribed items seems draconian.

An Unhappy and Uneasy Settlement

The fact remains, however, that policing shipments of aid into Gaza is a sensitive subject. Unwilling to trust any other supervisor, Israel issues its own warrants and carries out its own searches. That said, the limits of its allies have been comprehensively illustrated by this incident. Relations with Turkey, one of Israel’s most significant Muslim allies have been deteriorating for some time now, and the Turkish government’s uncompromising response to the nine deaths gives the impression of a trap that Israel has walked into. The UN, meanwhile, has diluted criticism of Israel, but the Security Council responds only to crises and with a kind of creative tension that still leads to calls such as this; to release all ships.

Israel is now caught in an awkward situation. If it intends to bluff out this latest blow to its image, it may well find itself even more isolated. That is not a consideration that will sway Netanyahu, but were more protestors to attempt a second flotilla he will have to decide whether to risk more violence and more outrage, and possibly another war, or a loosening of the blockade. Netanyahu is an instinctive conservative, who resisted Sharon’s great gamble in 2005. There is no sign yet that Israel will not be able to endure, even if the situation worsens, but a revanchist attitude will deepen the injustice that it is currently perpetrating.

God is Back

Thoughts on a lecture by John Mickelthwaite at the London School of Economics

According to Mickelthwaite, a prolific journalist and editor of The Economist, religion is expanding globally. It is only our Eurocentric view that persuades us otherwise. As in so many areas, Western Europe has seen itself as the very definition of progress – and the direction in which the rest of the World is heading, give or take stops and starts. It is to The Economist’s credit that it is prepared to challenge this view.

Predictably, it is China that forms the starting point for this analysis of the new world order. Christianity is proliferating – partially under the auspices of state sponsorship and partly outside of it, which causes the regime’s leaders no end of dilemmas. But China is not the sole example. Africa has been a source of religious ferment for hundreds of years now, and American religion seems more boisterous by the day.  In unexpected places, like South Korea, megachurches are springing up. And that is just to take into account the examples granted by Christianity.

What is the cause of this phenomenon? Given his audience and well as his magazine, Mickelthwaite’s answer is suitably couched in economic terms of demand, supply and government intervention. The demand is partly that basic human need for meaning, given new urgency by the apparent lack of ideals and turbulence of modern liberal democracy and state communism. The supply is the same missionary impulse, reinvigorated by technology and a marketing-revolution.

Government intervention is less uniform, but tends towards the same ends. Islam has tended to be strengthened by state sponsorship, in a kind of Keynesian manner, whereas Christianity has been increasingly decontaminated by the separation of Church and State. In China, the government policy of prohibiting meetings of more than 25 people has encouraged the splintering of congregations, making religion sustainable and self-perpetual.

Does it Matter?

There is dispute about the evidence for the number of religious people growing, but that is only part of Mickelthwaite’s point. What matters more is that religion has become more influential. First, in a Tocquevillian sense, widespread religiosity is encouraging conformism. Secondly, religion is increasingly active and influential. In an echo of Martin Luther King’s appeal to African American self-determination (“collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that?”), Christianity alone has an economic and social influence equal to almost all other NGOs combined.

Thirdly, religion is increasingly influential politically. Mickelthwaite makes the point that many intractable international relations issues have come to involve a religious element – particularly in the Middle East. The common denominator, however, is not just religion but nationalism. Faith-based approaches to these problems can be as destructive as they are helpful.

Closer to home, religion is becoming increasingly vocal on issues of social policy, which does undeniably mean a more difficult balancing act. But ideological depths of politicised religion are arguably less consequential. I struggle to see what religion adds to the Tea Party movement, for instance. It is precisely because social issues are where opposition is most fragmented that these provide rallying points for religious political figures.

Religion is obviously going to remain a force in the world, whether or not its influence waxes or wanes. China is still undecided on whether it will be an asset or a liability, as is most of the non-religious world. Undoubtedly, it will be a mixture, so the question is how to get the most out of it and mitigate its worst excesses.

Though America gets unhelpful criticism for its religious life, it might offer the best example. Religion in America does not benefit from close association with the state, which remains the guarantor of its citizen’s rights. That makes it a powerful social force – in some ways the only power it has. But it also unleashes its good offices by making social ills its main focus. Instead of influencing politics, religion ought to focus on poverty and addiction. That said, the precondition for American liberty is the pluralism of its religion – a result of the relentless subdivision of Protestantism. Without it, religion has a tendency to overreach itself, which is why governments must privatise religion.

The Nobel Peace Prize

The Norwegian committee that decided to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama may have thought they were making a populist choice.  They were wrong.  Howls of derision are ringing out.  This is the first time since 1976 that the award has so flagrantly ignored results and so deliberately sought to encourage nascent progress. 

Indeed, it is hard to ignore the fact that Obama was nominated – as a matter of necessity – less than a month into his presidency.  That Obama’s election was a triumph for the progress of race relations in the United States is not in question, everyone agrees.  However, this award is in danger of making him a token, and further enraging the conservative elements in American politics that resent his neat public image and alleged discreet socialism.

And yet, it is doubtful that the Nobel Committee were so naïve.  It is just about possible to construct an argument for Obama, although it is a blatantly political and in some ways logically dubious one.  The argument, I think, runs something like this.

“The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

It is easy to forget the role that nuclear weapons still play in our society.  Since the fall of the Soviet Union, they have been almost entirely irrelevant to the public consciousness.  But it would be as foolish to write the history of our times without reference to the bomb as it would to ignore its central role in the Cold War. 

The Iraq war was based on the premise that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction.  The pretext was Saddam’s refusal to allow UN inspectors full access to his country, and admittedly faulty evidence that Saddam was interested in plutonium from Niger.  That has since been obscured by six-years of conventional warfare, and accusations of duplicity.  Tony Blair was, I think, fundamentally honest when he described what he foresaw as the defining issue of  21st Century international relations;

“The threat is chaos. And there are two begetters of chaos. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam.”

The latter of those two has come to be seen as more dominant, and it is the reason that Obama will almost certainly seek, through force, a conclusion to the war in Afghanistan.  But surveying the world in 2009, nuclear weapons, or weapons of mass destruction are of pressing concern.  North Korea has tested nuclear weapons, and Obama’s decision to reveal secret intelligence about Iran’s nuclear programme put President Ahmadinejad on the back foot.  The prospect of either of these nations achieving nuclear capability would undoubtedly create a new proliferation crisis, as neighbours rushed to arm themselves in defence.  The danger of so many contradictory policies of deterrent is grave.

That is why President Obama has sought a UN Resolution on non-proliferation, while stressing that the target was a world without nuclear weapons.  The document itself resolves virtually nothing, except to remain alert to these concerns.  It reaffirms a good deal, particularly the Non-Proliferation and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaties, but is essentially a statement, devoid of a decisive context.  In short, it achieves little.

“Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics.”

Thus, it is necessary to look elsewhere for progress.  The Nobel Committee implicitly argues in favour of two of Obama’s foreign policy instruments – his use of diplomacy, and the store he sets in multilateral institutions.  There is meat on the former, but whether the latter bears fruit remains to be seen.

Relations with Russia are a particular positive for Obama.  Since ‘pressing the reset button,’ negotiations have begun on reducing nuclear arms in the two countries (not a very significant gain in terms of non-proliferation because the threat is limited and Russian stocks are deteriorating, but superficially and financially helpful nonetheless) and, most importantly, Russia has begun to show signs that it will abide by sanctions on Iran.  That raises the prospect of greater collaboration, that the dilemma of 2003 can be avoided, but it does not guarantee it.

This year has been a multilateral year in many ways.  The meetings of the G20, in the shadow of the recession, have set a precedent in two respects.  Firstly, it has confirmed the expansion of the ‘club’, which decides on the world economy from the seven largest economies plus Russia, to a group that includes the most important developing nations.  Secondly, the collective response to the recession was choreographed, and significantly included more money and a greater respectability for the IMF, another multilateral body. 

If there is a serious headline achievement at Copenhagen on Climate Change, Obama will be able to refer to his grand speech at the UN, where he declared that “We have reached a pivotal moment”, where

“the United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international co-operation – one that recognises the rights and responsibilities of all nations” and cite a response. 

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

Obama’s foreign policy team believe in something called ‘quantity theory’.  Essentially, small but high profile successes culminate into influence, meaning the quantity of power steadily increases.  The presidency began with the (wholly symbolic) closure of Guantanamo Bay and the (slightly more consequential) ban on torture in the US army.  Then came the well-received Cairo speech, and in August there was progress as Benjamin Netanyahu accepted a two-state solution and negotiations began on the settlements, although there was no Peace Plan to be unveiled at the UN.

Most recently came Obama’s UN speech itself, which was underrated, or at least crowded out by other news.  While he did not make it obvious how he was going to deal with every issue, Obama said several important things.  He pointed to four pillars, which were

“fundamental to the future we would like for our children; non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.“ 

He also spoke of the importance of human rights, and addressed head-on the concern that while

“the United Nations does extraordinary good around the world feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, mending places that have been broken… it also struggles to enforce its will, and to live up to the ideals of its founding.”

In part, there was little need to descriptive plans or schedules.  The point was to highlight areas for action, and open them up to collective action.  That may not be successful in the long run, but unwillingness to collaborate with America proved to be an obstacle during the Bush years. 

Should the reaction to it hold positive, the Nobel award adds prestige to Obama’s new strategy for engagement with the world.  It is to be hoped that it will reduce the regional sway of men like Ahmadeinejad and Chavez and commit the rest of the world, rather than just America to a particular course. 

Challenges are inevitable.  The disastrous demonstration against the Iranian election was dispiriting, there is every chance that Russia will remain as belligerent in its near-abroad, and China, Burma and Zimbabwe may continue to repress the human rights of their own citizens.  But should Obama’s strategy produce results, they will trump many of the individual contributions that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize before.