Britain, Government, Politics, Sport

Team GB offers a golden lesson in how to beat the world

TEAM GB

RIo Medal Table

Rio Medal Table

OVER THE PAST FORTNIGHT in Rio at the Olympic Games, Team GB exceeded the highest hopes, spreading euphoria and joy even among many who thought they were uninterested in sport.

Across a huge range and spectrum of disciplines, Team GB athletes have shown what this country can achieve at its best. It amassed a hoard of gold medals to outstrip even China with its population of 1.4billion.

Yet, the performances we have all witnessed have given us much more than an excuse to fly the flag or by raising a toast to Britain’s highest ranking in the medal tables for 108 years. Team GB has offered a daily lesson in human virtue, gruelling effort and its rewards.

See: A collection of moments from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games – Olympic Rio Gallery 2016

Interviewed after their victories, these supremely dedicated athletes, for the most part modest and unassuming, have attributed their success above all to sacrifice, determination and an unrelenting work ethic.

In the words of the immortal Mo Farah, winner of four Olympic golds: ‘If you dream of something, have ambitions and are willing to work hard, then you can get your dreams.’

These are true role models for Britain’s young, too often captivated by dreams of the effortless, vacuous celebrity of the tawdry stars of reality TV.

If our athletes’ performance spurs them to emulate the commitment of the likes of Andy Murray on the tennis court, cyclist Laura Trott, boxer Nicola Adams, taekwondo’s Jade Jones and gymnast Max Whitlock, what rich rewards this country would reap. The showjumping gold won by 58-year-old Nick Skelton and older Britons, too, also offers a lesson about the importance of refusing to give up.

 

BUT isn’t there also a lesson for politicians in our athletes’ phenomenal success?

As one victor after another has been quick to acknowledge, Team GB owes at least a measure of its triumph to the ruthlessly effective way in which the British Olympic Association and UK Sport channelled state aid and lottery money into the disciplines most likely to yield the richest crop of medals.

Wasn’t the Olympic investment strategy – focusing on fields in which Britain is strong, the competition vulnerable and the rewards enormous – a perfect model for government priorities after Brexit?

The fact is that in commerce, as in sport, Britain has huge strengths – as even the most ardent of Remainers are beginning to admit.

Indeed, US banking giant JP Morgan has become the latest promoter of Project Fear to reverse its prediction that the FTSE-100 would plummet after a Brexit vote. Now it tells investors that British shares are the safest bet in Europe.

Certainly, there are tough negotiations ahead – and the sooner they start, the sooner the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the economy will lift.

But with the right focus, there is every hope that wonderful opportunities will open up when we’re free from Brussels interference to develop industries and services of our own choosing.

In Rio, our athletes have shown what huge rewards can be achieved through self-belief and hard work, backed up by clear-thinking administrators with their minds fixed on results.

The ministers in charge of negotiating Brexit should learn from them. Instead of fighting turf wars among themselves, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davis need a clear strategy to help us take on the world and win.

Team GB has shown how it can be done. Now the politicians in Britain must get on with it.

Standard
China, Foreign Affairs, Philippines, United Nations

China refuses to accept findings impinging on its sovereignty

CHINA AND ISLANDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

Intro: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has no jurisdiction on territorial sovereignty, which, in China’s view, makes the court’s award illegal and invalid

China South China Sea China Air Patrol

Two Chinese Su-30 fighter jets take off from an unspecified location to fly a patrol over the South China Sea.

On July 19, an article appeared on this site entitled, China: An international ruling over the South China Sea.

Unilaterally initiated by the Philippines, the Arbitral Tribunal for the South China Sea announced its decree in July. China immediately responded by rejecting the court’s findings and the narrative here relates to why China has done so.

Firstly, Beijing insists that the Tribunal abused its authority by meddling in territorial issues. The disputes between China and the Philippines are about territorial sovereignty. China has held historical rights over the islands for some 2000 years without any disputes until the 1970s when the Philippines started to occupy China’s islands following reported discoveries of oil and natural gas in the region. According to its own rules, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has no jurisdiction on territorial sovereignty, which, in China’s view, makes the court’s award illegal and invalid.

Secondly, China decries that the ruling violated China’s legal rights. Beijing says that in light of international law, any country has rights to not accept dispute settlement imposed upon it on issues concerning territorial disputes. What is more, in 2006 China made a declaration excluding from arbitration matters concerning maritime delimitation. Over 30 countries (including the UK) have also made similar moves. In doing so, the award violated China’s rights.

Thirdly, Beijing claims that the court’s decree has harmed the international practice of peaceful settlement of disputes. China says it adheres to a peaceful foreign policy, one which seeks to settle disputes through negotiation and consultations. China has signed boundary treaties with 12 of its 14 land neighbours through bilateral negotiations in a spirit of equality and understanding. China has also been at pains to point out that it has reached consensus with the Philippines on settling their regional disputes through negotiation. However, the Tribunal turned a blind eye to it, damaging China’s goodwill.

And fourthly, China argues that the arbitration has intensified tensions in the region. Despite the disputes, the region remains peaceful with freedom of navigation unaffected. Beijing insists that the arbitration’s ruling will now accelerate tensions with countries outside the region and will be using it as an excuse for further interference and muddying the waters for their own interests.

Standard
European Union, NATO, Russia, Turkey, United States

Russia and Turkey’s rapprochement

RUSSIA/TURKEY

Intro: For Russia, this is an opportunity to drive a hard wedge between Turkey, NATO and the EU

The unfolding diplomatic rapprochement between Russia and Turkey is likely to become a significant challenge for the European Union and NATO. For centuries now, these two countries have remained implacably opposed to each other. Efforts just a decade ago to forge a strategic partnership were curtailed by the civil war that has been raging in Syria. With Moscow clearly propping up Bashar al-Assad, Ankara either stayed out or implicitly supported his enemies. In more recent times, relations hit another low point last November when Turkish fighter jets shot down a Russian Su-24 bomber near the Syrian border for violating Turkey’s airspace. Russia imposed sanctions and the damage to relations between the two countries seemed irreparable.

But even before events last month in which an attempted military coup failed, President Erdogan had decided he could no longer afford a cold war of attrition and stalemate with Moscow and began making overtures with the Kremlin. The putsch appears to have expedited matters: yesterday Mr Erdogan met with Vladimir Putin to agree the normalising of relations. This will send shock waves through the EU at a time of unprecedented uncertainty.

For Russia, this is an opportunity to drive a hard wedge between Turkey, NATO and the EU and will help to abate Russian anger over the jet incident. President Putin must recognise in Mr Erdogan a leader cut from the same cloth – a democratically elected nationalist who has been behaving more like a despot.

Mr Erdogan’s ruthless purge of opponents after the thwarted coup has alarmed EU leaders who had encouraged Ankara to believe it could join the European Union at some future point and had pledged to introduce visa-free access for Turkish travellers to the Schengen area. No date, however, has ever been set or given for either and several EU countries have made it abundantly clear they would veto Turkey’s accession citing its human rights record, loss of press freedom and other economic shortcomings. Angela Merkel of Germany has been desperate to keep both options open in order to stop Turkey reneging on a deal to keep Syrian refugees from crossing into Europe.

But Mr Erdogan seems to have been cooling towards Europe, none of whose leaders have been to Ankara since the failed coup. Turkey’s leader is seeking alliances elsewhere. Improving relations between Russia and Turkey will have significant implications both for policy on Syria and for NATO itself. The US nuclear base at Incirlik is a key part of western defences, but, if Turkey were to leave its loss would be a serious blow to the organisation.

These developments will be concerning for European leaders. But for the Russian president this is a chance to cause fresh consternation in the capitals of Europe and in Washington. Mr Putin seems certain to grab a gift horse that couldn’t have come at a better time for his own interests.

Standard