Author: johnredwood

The UK has assisted in a series of wars in Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. It has so far stayed out of Syria, though the government was keen to intervene there as well. It has stayed out of Gaza, Egypt, and other troubled or potentially dangerous territories. It has stayed out of Iran, though it has used diplomatic pressures and sanctions over the issue of nuclear weapons.

The overall experience of these conflicts has been very mixed. The most successful intervention came assisting the USA in liberating Kuwait from unwanted invasion at the request of the Kuwaiti government and people. The interventions in support of the USA post 9/11, to try to root out terrorists and to change regimes have been less successful.

The largest and longest deployment came to Afghanistan. There the western forces have helped engineer regime change, and have given extensive support to the democratic regime that now governs. The UK did not commit sufficient troops to Helmand province, leading to additional US commitment there to seek to control the anti government forces.

The west’s aims have varied. Sometimes they have just been to support the civilian power established. Sometimes they have been seeking regime change. Sometimes they have been fighting against various branches of militant Islam. Sometimes the west has been on the Sunni side, and sometimes on the Shia side, in the relentless religious war. The west has changed its stance on Assad in Syria, has allowed a military coup to replace the elected government of Egypt, has tried to establish an elected government in Libya but failed to help enforce its will on a war torn country, has been patient in Afghanistan, and is now modest in its involvement in the bitter struggle over Iraq.

It is difficult to see that all this activity over more than a decade has either vanquished militant Islamic forces or established a series of peace loving democracies that share more of our values. The West has discovered that terrorist groups are many and various, constantly changing, and able to move across borders as Western force seeks to catch up with them. The West has learned the old lesson that you cannot establish a democracy by conquering a country. The impulse for democracy has to come from within the country itself and takes years to learn and bed down.

It looks as if US policy towards the Middle East is shifting. The response to Iraq and Syria this time round is much more modest than after 9/11. There seems to be more recognition that local politics matters and western troops are at a big disadvantage without knowledge of the local languages, religions and customs. I want the UK to lead the conversation in NATO and the UN against further military intervention, other than in a case like Kuwait where a Middle Eastern country asks for western help in resisting invasion and it is help we can give successfully.

The UK today faces just two formal threats from other states to the integrity of places we protect. Argentina refuses to lift her claim to the Falkland islands, despite losing a war following an illegal invasion, and despite the overwhelming wish of the islanders to stay with us. Spain lodges a claim to Gibraltar for no good reason, other than geographical proximity, and regularly seeks to disrupt life on the Rock.

Our diplomatic and defence forces have to be in a state of vigilance to ensure the safety and self determination of both the Rock and the islands. Both places have shown in referenda their overwhelming desire to stay with the UK. The Falklands showed the unfortunate need for the UK to possess an expeditionary capability to defend the islands. It also showed we cannot always rely on NATO and the US to assist us. Then our force was seaborne and successful, but with considerable hazard. Today a new airport would make it much easier to send forces rapidly should there be a new military threat. It is most important the UK shows permanent resolve in all it says and does, to avoid giving the impression that illegal acts by others would no longer be resisted.

The UK also buys into the US view of the threat from Al Qaeda/Taliban/Isil and other similar insurgent violent groups in the Middle East. Whilst it is true that the UK has to be vigilant to see off terrorist activity here in the UK by intelligence and police action, it is not necessarily true that going to war from time to time against some of these people in some of the Middle Eastern countries where they operate makes us safer at home or will lead to the end of such terrorist threats.

The UK public was very critical of Mr Blair’s Iraq war. There is considerable scepticism about the results of the intervention in Libya. The long war in Afghanistan was bravely fought by our troops, and may result in a better Afghanistan depending on how the local politics now work out. However, it transpired that the US went to the wrong country to track down Bin Laden. The US has discovered that the terrorist groups operate over the borders into Pakistan so they cannot be defeated just in one or two Middle Eastern countries.

Libya is now a broken country with warring bands competing for power and territory. Egypt’s democratic revolution led to a military coup. Iraq is split into three broad fighting groups, with its government shelling its own people, and the rebels killing both the government troops and civilian bystanders. Syria is also gripped by a long and brutal civil war. So far western intervention has not been able to stabilise the region, nor to help create several functioning democracies as hoped.

The main ways we can protect ourselves against terrorist threat are through proper controls of our borders, and through good intelligence and police action here at home. We need to develop our cyber capability, use access under warrant to the phone and internet connections of those we suspect to monitor and warn us of forthcoming trouble, and work through schools and colleges to tackle home grown extremism.

I wish to write some pieces over the next few weeks on the future of the UK’s foreign policy and alliances. I do so because the future of our relationship with the emerging integrated state of Euroland is up for reconsideration in the General Election, and because many people in the UK are now tired of the US approach to the Middle East under the long shadow of 9/11. That too may change during the forthcoming US Presidential election.

The UK’s current stance is based on a central folly or misleading proposition – that the UK as a member of the EU, NATO and the Security Council has power by virtue of its membership of those bodies, and therefore has to keep compromising its own interests or beliefs to stay in or justify its membership of those bodies.

The truth is of course the opposite. Those bodies draw strength from the membership of the UK, to the extent that the UK is and remains a large world economic power, and to the extent that it continues to spend substantial sums on military force which it is prepared to use when necessary. As someone who broadly supports our membership of NATO and opposes our membership of the EU under the current terms and treaties, I wish to see substantial changes in the UK’s relationship with most international bodies, and a redefinition of the UK national interest and what we will do.

Once the UK has a new idea of what its national interest is, then it is easier to decide what new relationship we need with the EU, which type of NATO interventions we will join, and what defence forces we need.

At the high level, the UK’s first national interest must be to promote the prosperity, peace and happiness of UK citizens. This should mean we wish to promote free trade, democracy and peace around the world. Our second national interest must be to protect and ally with those of like minds and those who are formally under our defence umbrella. We need to recognise the limits to our military power, and make sure we have sufficient military might to deter aggression against us and those we wish to protect, and to carry out expeditionary interventions where appropriate. We also need to strengthen the potential of our political and moral influence, by avoiding conflicts which make us too partisan or compromised by those we would ally with.

I am no apologist for Russia. I do not support illegal invasions nor fuelling civil wars in third countries. Russia has not behaved well in Ukraine.
That does not make me a fan of the EU’s approach either. It takes two to make a conflict. The EU has helped destabilise Ukraine by its approach to the previous elected President and by its offers to the new government in Kiev. The EU has not clearly condemned shelling and bombing of civilians by the Kiev government in the way it has condemned Russian military support to the rebels or the bloodless occupation of Crimea.
Policy before the EU and Russian interventions in UKrainian politics was based on a long term rapprochement of Russia and the west, following the unpleasant cold war. That was a good policy, and the world will be a worse place if diplomats and governments are unable to get back to positive working together between Russia and the west. The west’s interests are not best served by a poorer and angry Russia, locked out from western financial markets.
I read that Russia and the west still do co-operate to some extent on Middle Eastern policy, where both sides have important interests in stability but have different reach and influence depending on the country concerned. The Middle East needs Russia and the west to work together for stability in that troubled and war torn area.
In Europe, the EU should seek to reassure Russia that it is not following ambitions to encircle Russia in any threatening way. NATO is a defensive alliance in Europe. Ruling out adding more countries to NATO would be a good idea. In Ukraine we need an agreement to leave Ukraine as an independent country, where both the EU and Russia can have access and some influence without either side seeking or gaining control or untoward influence over policy. We need to find a way to get rid of sanctions with promises of no further military interventions by Russia. It is time to talk to see what is on offer. Those who are sure Russia is out to invade other countries will dislike this approach. Perhaps the best way to tip Russia into a more militaristic foreign policy is to carry on isolating her.

I will be on the panel of BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions this evening at 8pm. It will be repeated just after the 1pm news tomorrow lunch time, for anyone interested.