Category Archives: Politics

Government, Middle East, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

The agreement between the United States and Russia on Syria’s chemical weapons…

SYRIA: US/RUSSIAN AGREEMENT

The agreement between the United States and Russia on chemical weapons in Syria is an important piece of political diplomacy. The idea that Bashar al-Assad could avoid military action by giving up his chemical stockpiles was much more than an ‘off-the cuff’ remark by John Kerry, US Secretary of State, who expressed that view in London last Monday.

The notion that has been circulating that Vladimir Putin has outsmarted the United States, his country’s historical adversary, by somehow exploiting Mr Kerry’s blunder must surely be a mistake. The U.S. has wanted this deal, proved by its tireless efforts to get it, and the world should welcome it too.

The agreement is a step in the right direction. The deal provides for the destruction of Assad’s chemical arsenal under United Nations supervision by the middle of next year. The prospects of the deal being met must be weighed against the risk of Syria’s chemical weapons being seized upon by Iran, or even Russia itself, as potential complicity creeps in.

While Mr Kerry has talked up the prospect of the UN authorising military action if Assad failed to comply, those words are not in the text of the agreement, and Russia would have to agree that the terms of the deal had been breached.

The mere fact that an agreement has been reached, however, has two consequences. First, it does make it less probable that Assad or his commanders will use chemical weapons again, because to do so would politically embarrass Mr Putin. This has pertinence because the need to deter the Assad regime from using gas again was the strongest argument in favour of the limited punitive action proposed by President Obama. Second, it means that Russia is now engaged in a process that could lead to an eventual end to the bloodshed.

The parochial argument that the delay in air strikes sought by British MPs in the House of Commons by providing the time for a deal to be made does have substance. Globally, the return of Russia to the international stage is one of the more important changes in geopolitics in recent years. That may be a response to the winding down of American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, though Russia stepping forward was far from inevitable. Yet, again, if the U.S. had not taken the initiative in the region, no one else would have done so, particularly with Britain baulking at the prospect of becoming embroiled in another war. That Russia is now engaged in the search for an end to the brutality and carnage in Syria is a hopeful change.

For there to be a settlement in Syria, Iran will also need to be consulted as it too is also a patron of the Assad regime. We should not naively assume that the recent election of the ‘reform-minded’ Hassan Rouhani as Iranian president – with recent expressions of goodwill to Israel – mean that Iran is now a force for peace in the region.

But the agreement could bring the Iranian leadership to accept that its interests are best served by following the Russian lead and sharing some of the responsibility for ending a conflict in Syria that has claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people.

The deal between the United States and Russia deserves a cautious approval, even though the prospects for a settlement in Syria still remain particularly distant.

Standard
Britain, Business, Government, History, Politics, Society

A Royal Mail sell off makes business sense but there are risks…

ROYAL MAIL PRIVATISATION

In a world that is fundamentally different to that of the 1980s, the announcement by the Government this week that it will proceed with a £3 billion sale of Royal Mail, is the right way forward for the business if it is to survive. Margaret Thatcher baulked at the prospect and was, famously, a privatisation too far. Mrs Thatcher remarked in the Eighties that she was ‘not prepared to have the Queen’s head privatised’. Later, Michael Heseltine, and more recently, Peter Mandelson, had their privatisation plans for Royal Mail scuppered by dissenting MPs in the House of Commons.

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, however, notified the Stock Exchange this week of the Government’s intention to float the company, which will probably take place in November. The announcement represents a further expression of economic confidence as the economy slowly recovers from a deep and difficult 5-year recession. The privatisations of British Gas and British Airways, some three decades ago, coincided with a rising tide of opportunism. The parallels are noticeable as that is beginning to be felt once more.

The sale of Royal Mail affords something similar, too, to those earlier flotations: the spread of share ownership. More than 15,000 employees are to receive 10 per cent of the shares, with the rest being offered to institutional investors and ordinary members of the public.

While not without risks, the Government’s plan does have much to recommend it. Royal Mail has suffered from both chronic under-investment and deep-rooted inflexibility as the world around it has radically changed. Royal Mail is heavily unionised and has lumbered on, but the effect has been missed opportunities on a vast scale as rivals have been able to compete on the more lucrative parcel-delivery markets, even as the digital revolution and e-mail decimated traditional letter deliveries.

Moya Green, who took over in 2010, has brought Royal Mail back into the black, which was largely helped by the Government’s takeover of its £5 billion pension deficit. Following the flotation and barring unforeseen disasters, the first dividends, totalling £133 million, will be paid in July.

Despite the Government’s plan and opportunity, the Communication Workers Union has responded in time-honoured fashion by threatening to strike. How it envisages industrial action will help its members or Royal Mail is not wholly clear. The CWU will be holding a strike ballot early next month to protest against potential changes in pay and conditions.

Some of the union’s wider concerns will be shared by many, such as the protection of minimal universal services, guaranteeing a six days-a-week service at a uniform and affordable tariff. This has after all been the hallmark of Royal Mail since its inception and is much prized. But the legislation underpinning the privatisation, which passed through Parliament two years ago, protects the universal service and will remain enshrined in law. That guarantee has been reaffirmed by the Government following its announcement to privatise.

The digital and communication revolution has hit Royal Mail hard, with a fall of 10 million in the volume of letters sent daily. That decline has been arrested to some extent because of the huge increase in goods that are ordered online and need to be delivered.

The benefits of privatisation should not be underplayed. A fleeter-footed business, no longer restricted by government investment rules and with access to private capital, will be better placed to undertake the sweeping modernisation and rationalisation the organisation still needs to go through if it is to compete and vie for business successfully. Upon being privatised, Royal Mail would then not have to compete for scarce government funding which it currently does against other government departments and budgets, such as schools, hospitals, and the police.

But there are risks. The most immediate is that the shares are sold too cheaply, repeating the mistakes of previous flotations and leaving taxpayers cheated and resentful. Over the longer term, the challenge will be a regulatory one. Though it is almost certain that the Royal Mail will continue to be bound by the universal service obligation mandating a six-day nationwide postal delivery – bar senior management tinkering with a system that could loosen some of those ties – what is unclear is how such a costly service will be funded in the future. There may be hope that booming business elsewhere, such as through online shopping, will enable cross-subsidy funding. Critics have warned of unaffordable hikes in stamp prices or even state bailouts.

Mrs Thatcher’s unwillingness to sell off Royal Mail was not only a sentimental attachment to tradition, but sprang from a hard-headed assessment of the political pitfalls of tampering with a venerable national institution. While such hazards remain, a flotation of the Royal Mail is the right decision for the Treasury, and arguably the right decision for the organisation.

In predictable style, Labour has denounced the sale – yet, it was the last government that ended the Royal Mail monopoly and opened up the postal market to competition, thereby making the eventual privatisation inevitable.

Royal Mail can be categorised as one of the foundation stones of the modern British state, one that can trace its origins to 1516, when Henry VIII established the office of Master of the Posts. For it to remain an important part of the national story, it now needs to be a commercially viable venture that is ready and willing to compete in a market with far different demands and pressures.

Standard
Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, United States

The West should pursue punitive strikes in Syria…

‘RED LINE’ POLICY

Following Russia’s proposal on Syria aimed at monitoring and destroying Bashar al-Assad’s stockpile of chemical weapons, President Obama suspended a congressional vote to authorise the use of force against the Syrian regime.

But that proposal looks overly optimistic and unrealistic. Not only do the U.S. and Russia disagree over enforcement mechanisms if the Syrian regime fails to comply – the United States and her allies want a resolution provisioning the use of force in the event of non-compliance, the Russians do not – but the operational and technical challenges associated with destroying these weapons in a risky and volatile conflict zone should not be interpreted as something that will happen with unqualified ease.

Western military intervention has not, therefore, been averted and still remains a probable scenario. That has to remain an option that can still make an important contribution to the Syrian conflict, as well as beyond it.

Those desperate despots and tyrants around the world must be sent a message, namely that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated or permitted. Where this horrific form of weaponry is used the international community must insist it has the right to act. America’s ‘red line’ policy is once again being called into question.

Critics point out it is the numbers killed, rather than the means through which they are killed, that should constitute the ‘red line’ for the international community and those who are in support of humanitarian intervention. That, however, misses the logic, purpose and the devastating impact of chemical weapons use.

Recently on this site an article was posted concerning how history is littered with examples of chemical weapons being used during warfare (see article). Chemical weapon attacks in modern times can be traced to World War I. More recently they were used in 1988 in the Iraqi Kurdistan town of Halabja. These lethal and macabre attacks not only kill quickly and with an immediate impact on the local population, but they also inflict terror and have long-term consequences. They have the capacity to dramatically reduce enemy morale and fix a permanent physical and psychological scar on the local population. Chemical weapons inflict long-term injuries to its victims and can affect future generations in the form of birth defects and other disabilities. In Halabja, Hussein’s forces killed at least 5,000 men, women and children almost instantly. Thousands more continue to suffer today.

Chemical weapon attacks are not simply about destruction but about inflicting long-term, immeasurable and sustained pain and horror on a population. By their very nature, the use’ of chemical weapons are indiscriminate with their targets and their reach goes beyond the boundaries of the battlefield.

On the battlefield, they have the capacity to alter the balance of a conflict and offer a strategic advantage, especially in localised conflicts. Whilst it is certainly questionable that the limited use of chemical weapons will change the direction of the conflict, there effectiveness in urbanised and local areas should not be underestimated. Syria is engaged in a localised conflict where battles are taking place between disparate rebel forces and regime loyalists in an array of towns and cities.

Yet, if chemical weapons were used in a more consistent and sustained fashion and throughout the towns and cities embroiled in the conflict, then the entire balance of power could be altered to favour the regime.

Hesitation over military action is also based on the premise that the West would be supporting and fighting alongside radical al-Qaeda factions that dominate and comprise the Syrian opposition. That, though, misses two important aspects: firstly, that it would be against Western interests to have a rebel victory at a point when the West has very limited influence on the ground and, secondly, victory would put these radically inspired al-Qaeda elements in a position where they would come to dominate the Syrian state. That would be catastrophic for regional and global security and for the interests of both the West and the broader international community.

It has been made clear by President Obama (along with a British declaration) that any military strikes will not be aimed at removing the Assad regime (which otherwise would amount to ‘regime change’) or afford the rebels any meaningful victory. Instead, they say, strikes would be ‘punitive’ in their nature, giving in-effect Assad a bloody nose. Hence, Western action that aims to deter further chemical weapons use would not be instigated to bolster or afford rebel forces any meaningful victory.

The use of punitive and symbolic military strikes does not have to mean that diplomatic efforts should be put aside. The form of military intervention proposed by the US/UK, despite both powers having temporarily drawn back, can realistically be combined with diplomacy. The U.S. and Britain have repeatedly stated that the only outcome to this conflict can and must be a negotiated political settlement.

Military strikes, it is argued, will induce Assad into negotiating. But this has to be coupled with an effort to force rebel forces to also sit down at the negotiating table. That seems unlikely to happen at this stage, given that Assad has immense regional support as well as important proxy support from Russia. Rebel forces themselves are divided on the issue and do not operate under one unified banner.

But military strikes will show a willingness by the West to act that goes beyond the current conflict in Syria. The West is not currently in a position to topple Assad through extensive use of its military capacity (such as deploying ground troops), but it can and should still send a message to the Assad regime that it will act in the face of chemical weapons usage. That message would also resonate to other existing and future despots of the world.

Standard