Today’s announcement from the Russian president Vladimir Putin, on strategic bombers flights being resumed, is after a series of other earlier events, another reminder that the situation between the West and Russia has never been so tense since the end of the Cold War. This could very easily be dismissed, as a meaningless gesture on the part of president Putin, yet when at the same time the links between Russia and China are growing this could very well be a step toward a new cold war.
Russia’s transition from the USSR to the country it is today was far from smooth, with coups attempts and instability throughout the nineties. Indeed of all the old USSR countries, only the Baltic countries managed to have a near perfect transition to modern democratic states. It is fair to say that things would have been different, had not leaders like the corrupted Boris Yeltsin had been elected. But the truth is that the West and more importantly, the United States have some responsibility in what is currently happening.
Attempting to meddle in Russia’s partners affairs, like in Georgia, Uzbekistan and Ukraine was a big mistake. Not to accept Russia as a fully fledged partner of the Western world was another mistake. Russia would surely deserve to one the main members of the European Union, but the current EU renders this impossible. I would even dare to say that the same is true for NATO, since the issues we face are after all pretty similar.
Click here to continue reading…
Today brings news that, once again, the European Union and Britain have taken another worrisome step down the path to becoming a fully-fledged super-state.
In Brussels early this morning, Tony Blair, in one of his final serious acts as Prime Minister, capitulated without any real show of resistance and signed Britain up to what the eurosceptic campaign group, Open Europe describes as, ‘just the old EU Constitution in everything but name’.
On Thursday, Jose Manuel Barroso had asked the British people to have respect for our Parliament – but, with reference to the new treaty, it isn’t our Parliament that will be signing this constitution in disguise, but instead our soon to be departing Prime Minister, Tony Blair. And just why should we respect or take seriously the voice of a man and an institution such as the EU Commission who are unelected and do not serve those it is meant to represent?
Until the Constitution, the process of ‘ever closer union’ had been a slow and subtle one; gradually regulations, laws, treaties and legislation built up over the course of decades, robbing once proud self-governing nations of their sovereignty in exchange for dubious promises, false hopes, increasing levels of bureaucracy, corruption and furthering electoral disillusionment to near breaking point.
The EU Constitution was a daring move on the part of its constructors; the culmination of years of EU fanaticism had emboldened advocators of a super-union into moving more swiftly and overtly than they should or could. Though they were momentarily put in their place by referendums in France and the Netherlands, as Michael Portillo aptly observed in the Times today, ‘the plan to create a European state never dies. As in a bad sequel movie we discover that the monster so comprehensively destroyed at the end of film one has miraculously regenerated itself’. Once again, it is stealth by which the Europhiles move. They know that the people must be circumnavigated because these EU leaders and union supporters no longer trust their people – if they ever did.
Click here to continue reading…
It is with disgust, that I learnt today the new of an agreement concerning a new European Constitution. While the name ‘constitution’ has been dropped from the document’s name, it is a constitution in all but the name.
The changes from the previous document, rejected by both French and Dutch voters back in 2005, are mostly cosmetic, concerning a European foreign minister and symbols. Though Tony Blair pretended to have obtained a derogation for us, the only derogation permitted will concern the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as far as foreign policy is concerned, the 26 others states did not signed a binding agreement, allowing us to opt out of the common foreign policy. The result of what happened in Brussels is thus, a clear defeat for the United Kingdom and a stunning victory for the Franco-German alliance of Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel.
Putting up a strong and determined opposition to any treat was well possible, Lech and Jaroslavl Kaczynski both, respectively President and Prime Minister of Poland did not hesitated to say some truths concerning Germany’s past, on the issue of qualified majority voting. France also managed to repel a clause concerning ‘free and undistorted competition’, there are no doubts that the whole of the French left and a part of the French right, must be celebrating this ‘victory against ultraliberalism’. This all shows that putting up a strong opposition against this treaty was possible, Blair choose not to oppose the treaty, perhaps in order to foster a semblance of ‘European legacy’.
Click here to continue reading…
The recent actuality is full with news concerning the sailors and marines captured by Iran. How despicable the attitude of Iran might be, diplomacy is for the moment the only option in this affair, but at the some time some key weakness on our part are highlighted.
Some may question why the captured personnel did not opened fired on the approaching Iranian vessel. The answer is fairly easy, the Royal Navy is abiding to UN-made rules of engagement, so that the sailors could not fire unless fired upon. But at the same time a crucial weakness is also highlighted, inadequate air cover.
Had sufficient air cover been provided, the Iranian vessel would have been sighted miles off, by any plane and even dozens of miles off by a radar plane such as an E-2 Hawkeye. The air cover provided by Invincible class carriers, is wholly insufficient as radar planes or modern fighters can’t be deployed. As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, it is also worth remembering that had air cover been provided, from a large aircraft carrier capable of deploying normal fighter planes, the war would have been much shorter and losses dues, to Argentine air attacks considerably reduced.
Click here to continue reading…
Yesterday evening, the Rt. Hon Lord Rees-Mogg of Hinton Blewitt gave a public lecture at the University of Bath entitled “Issues in Foreign Policy.” The speech was organised by the Royal Society of Arts’ South West regional branch and very well attended by both students and Bath area residents.
The University of Bath which awarded him the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws in 1977. He was Editor of The Times from 1967 to 1981 and now sits as an independent peer in the House of Lords. His son Jacob Rees-Mogg is currently the Conservative candidate for the neighbouring Wansdyke constituency, and his daughter Annunziata is the Conservative candidate for Somerton and Frome.
Lord Rees-Mogg spoke at length about how history provided an indicator with regard to the current foreign political circumstances the world now faced, and the challenges facing countries such as Iraq, Britain and the United States. He drew skilfully upon the past experiences of Otto von Bismarck and Abraham Lincoln and their realist approach to foreign relations, compared with the more idealistic approach (as he saw it) taken by Tony Blair and George Bush.
For those who didn’t attend, you can download a copy of Lord Rees-Mogg’s speech which we recorded by clicking here (1hour 8mins – 15.6MB.)
