Category Archives: Society

Britain, Defence, Europe, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Trump’s peace deal. At what cost?

EUROPEAN SECURITY

CONFUSED, contradictory, and deeply concerning. That is the verdict passed at the Munich Security Conference on Donald Trump’s hectic first month in the White House. The alarm in the air is unmistakably fraught.  

That’s chiefly attributed to the Trump administration being in the driving seat with the Europeans not even on the bus. Though his destination is unclear to many of us, what we do know is the US President wants a Nobel Peace Prize and believes a deal with Vladimir Putin will deliver it – no matter the cost to Ukraine, Europe, and Britain.

Trump assertively believes in a might-is-right world where the strong do what they can and the weak accept what they must. Forget high-minded appeals to past sacrifice and shared values; flattery and greed are the currencies that count now.

Ukraine’s mineral riches will sate that thirst. Lindsey Graham, the US Senator who represents the old-style Atlanticist wing of the Republican Party, has told the President that Ukraine is valuable real estate and that Russia must not be allowed to develop it.

So, it is mystifying that Mr Trump, the supposedly hard-nosed author of The Art Of The Deal, has given Putin major concessions before the talks have even started.

Will he allow Putin to dominate Europe in return for Moscow severing its alliance with Beijing? He’s capable of pushing such a horribly mistaken policy that could be disastrous for our security.

The good news is that the Conference’s dreadful proclamation – inviting Russia back into the G7, promising friendly summits with Putin, and excluding Ukraine from NATO membership – may be dumped tomorrow.

The US President changes his mind with impunity. His desire, according to reports, is to lead the news every hour of every day. Consistency and predictability can be disregarded, attention is what matters.  

The bad news is that his bullying streak is consistent. European leaders are playing with fire when they rebuke him publicly. It will be all too easy for Trump to withdraw the vital 8,000 US troops who protect NATO’s eastern frontier.

He can cancel the intelligence-sharing with Ukraine that provides its hard-pressed troops with their electronic eyes and ears.

A broken, defeated Ukraine will be a catastrophe for Europe, with millions of refugees fleeing west.

It will embolden Putin to find his next victim – perhaps Estonia, where Britain has scraped together 1,000 troops as part of a NATO tripwire force. But without Americans, that tripwire rings no bells.

Yes, European countries are belatedly boosting defence spending. But it will take many years before they can fill the gap the Americans would leave. They cannot even provide a credible force to protect Ukraine after a ceasefire deal. When it comes to European security, the Americans are the only game in town.

All this leaves Britain in a dreadful position. We cannot join the Europeans in denouncing Trump’s selfish, cynical approach. Our intelligence and nuclear relationship with the US are central to our own defence. We know they can be a difficult ally, but the alternative is worse.

Yet we do not want to see Europe isolated, failing, and splintering. Nor do we wish to see it falling prey to Russian – and Chinese – influence. That would be a catastrophe for our own security.

We should also be vexed about a European superstate taking shape without our participation. President Zelensky has called for a European army and increasing fear of Putin is driving continental leaders to take collective security seriously as never before.

The bleak and hard truth is that Britain’s hollowed-out Armed Forces, stagnant economy, and lightweight political leadership risk leaving us marginalised and on the sidelines. And for that we have only ourselves to blame.

Standard
Britain, Government, Middle East, Politics, Society, Syria

A moment of danger as well as opportunity

SYRIA

ON paper, the fall of a brutal tyrant, especially one who tortured and gassed his own people, should be a cause for unqualified celebration in the free world.

In practice, we know from bitter experience that when such despots are deposed, fresh chaos and tyranny all too often follow in the immediate aftermath. Elation over the horror of Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi quickly turned to intense fear as Iraq and Libya were consumed by anarchy and civil war.

So, following the abrupt fall of Bashar al-Assad, the world is asking with some trepidation: What comes next for Syria, the wider Middle East, and the West?

Not for the first time in this volatile and unpredictable region, Western intelligence agencies were blindsided by the speed and intensity of the Islamist rebel offensive.

After capturing Damascus, and forcing Assad into exile, the insurgents declared total victory. Most prominent among the militias is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

Its leaders may be preaching moderation right now, but they have their roots in ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Extremism and vengeance lurk behind the façade.

The various rebel factions have little in common except their hatred of Assad. Will they manage to unite to form a government – or plunge into a bloody power struggle?

The collapse of the regime is unquestionably a humiliation and a major strategic blow for Iran and Russia, its staunchest allies. Iran, because it uses Syria in funnelling weapons to its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon; Russia, because it has military bases in Syria that it will wish to protect.

The British PM welcomed the toppling of Assad’s “barbaric regime” and called for peace and stability, but with radical Islamists now in charge he risks looking naïve. Events in Syria represent a profound challenge to the West.

Undoubtedly, the renewed violence and instability in Syria will almost certainly trigger fresh waves of refugees heading for Europe and the UK. Strong political leadership and coordination in the West is now an imperative.

One of the many unanswered questions is what will happen now to the 50,000 former ISIS militants currently held by Kurdish forces in north-east Syria.

If these brutal jihadis are released or fight their way out of the camps, the repercussions could be deadly in Europe as well as the Middle East.

And the warning given by ex-MI6 chief Sir Alex Younger of a “serious spike” in the threat posed this country by foreign and home-grown extremists that could be inspired by a resurgence of Islamic State is deeply alarming. We know from atrocities committed here in the past just how murderous and hard to predict these fanatics can be.

The current UK terror threat is at level 3 – “substantial” – but may well be elevated in the light of unfolding events. Extra-vigilance will now be needed by our security services, police, and the Border Force.

The world also awaits to see what kind of regime the rebels will create in Assad’s place. Whatever Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is saying publicly, the West must remember that it as an offshoot of al-Qaeda, and so its leaders are unlikely to be fans of Western democracy.

The UK has announced £11 million in foreign aid for Syria. We must be very careful where that money goes. As Foreign Secretary David Lammy rightly reminded the House of Commons, HTS remains a proscribed terrorist organisation.

Jubilation over the fall of a dictator should not blind us to the risks of what comes next. As Mr Lammy said: “This is a moment of danger as well as opportunity.”

Standard
Britain, Government, ICC, Israel, Legal, Politics, Society

War crimes demand accountability

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

THE arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence minister Yoav Gallant, represent a historic milestone in the fight for accountability over war crimes.

For Israel’s leadership, the ICC’s action ends decades of perceived impunity and challenges what critics describe as Israel’s longstanding “shield of immunity”. There were predictable reactions: Netanyahu condemned the ICC’s decision as “antisemitic”, while others praised the warrants against Israel’s leaders as an “important historical precedent”. The ICC’s jurisdiction over Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem provides the legal foundation for this bold move. However, the real test of these warrants lies with the ICC’s 124 member states, which are legally obliged to arrest the accused and transfer them to The Hague. Failure to act would expose international law as a façade, undermining its ability and allowing powerful nations and their allies to trample justice with impunity. Enforcing these warrants is not just a legal obligation – it is a moral imperative to uphold the principle that no leader is above the law.

This mandate demands both individual accountability and state responsibility, prohibiting governments from aiding or enabling war crimes. The UK government faces criticism for its support of Israel, which campaigners argue has long contravened international law. Many European nations that championed ICC action against Russia’s Vladimir Putin must now confront their obligations toward Israel. Failing to enforce the warrants risks betraying commitments and eroding trust in multilateral justice. The consistency of their responses will test their commitment to international law.

Like Israel, the United States does not recognise the ICC’s authority. Washington’s longstanding rejection of ICC jurisdiction, coupled with threats of sanctions against cooperating states sends a troubling message: that international law applies only to weaker nations, not to global powers or their allies. Such resistance weakens the global justice system and calls into question the principles the US claims to uphold. The crimes at the centre of those warrants are among the gravest violations of international humanitarian law, including starvation as a weapon of war and deliberate attacks on civilians. When such acts are systematic and state-driven, they demand accountability. The ICC’s pursuit of justice tests the international community’s resolve to uphold these norms in the face of political resistance.

This moment represents more than a legal proceeding; it is a fundamental challenge to the international order. The ICC’s actions signal that even the most powerful nations must answer for breaches of humanitarian law. If member states fail to act, they risk rendering international law meaningless. The choice is clear: uphold the principles of justice and law or accept a world where power determines impunity. By endorsing the court’s decision, rogue states will begin to fear being brought to book. Upholding these principles is essential to a just international order where the law protects all, not just the strong. A powerful message is contained in the ICC warrants: that the era of unchecked impunity for war crimes must end.

A special responsibility falls to Britain, which helped to create the ICC when Labour’s Robin Cook was foreign secretary. It was an important and valuable achievement that should not now be undermined. Keir Starmer must make it absolutely, unambiguously clear that if Netanyahu or Gallant steps foot on UK territory, they will be arrested and handed over to the court to face trial. It’s not politics, and neither is it personal. It’s justice.

Standard