Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Politics, Syria, United States

Britain’s global standing could be diminished…

NOT THE VOTE THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT SAYS THE BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY

The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has warned that Britain’s standing in the world could be ‘diminished’ following Parliament’s rejection of military action against Syria.

Mr Hague said he and the prime minister were working to ensure that Britain does not ‘matter less’ in the wake of the unprecedented vote, which effectively ruled out British involvement in any attack on the Syrian regime.

The Foreign Secretary said that it wasn’t the outcome the Government had sought and added: ‘We have to make sure that Britain isn’t diminished’. Mr Hague, who today held talks with U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, in London, insisted ministers were not ‘gung ho’ about military action.

But he said he remained convinced that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons should be met with a military response – and it would be ‘alarming’ if the U.S. Congress also voted against retaliatory strikes.

Warning that the violent fallout from the Arab Spring could last for years, the Foreign Secretary said that if it is decided in the various parliaments of the world that no-one will stand up to the use of chemical weapons and take any action about that, that would amount to a very alarming moment in the affairs of the world.

Mr Hague said:

… The real fear is of these processes going on a long time, of revolutions that take decades – throwing up a lot of turbulence, civil wars along the way, sometimes bringing intervention.

But he added:

… We mustn’t be put off by that from keeping faith with millions of people in the Arab world who want the dignity and freedom that we have in our own country. We have to keep faith with them and not think that they’re all evil or they’re all fanatics because actually, yes, sometimes these countries have those people … but the great majority of people are not like that.

Mr Hague acknowledged that atrocities carried out by the Syrian opposition had made it harder for the public and MPs to support intervention. But he said Britain had a duty to ensure more moderate elements in the opposition were not ‘eliminated’.

Mr Hague insisted that the Government had no plans for a second Commons Vote on Syria, but added: ‘If circumstances change dramatically, then of course everybody would be looking at things in a different light.’

Standard
Economic, Financial Markets, Government, Politics, Russia

G20 warns that the global economic crisis is not yet over…

WORLD ECONOMY

At the end of the G20 last week, the leading group of nations said that the crisis in the global economy is far from over and more needs to be done to stimulate growth and create jobs around the world.

In a statement issued at the end of their summit in St Petersburg, Russia, G20 leaders welcomed a recovery in the developed world but warned of risks facing emerging markets.

The communique said:

… Despite our actions, the recovery is too weak, and risks remain tilted to the downside.

It listed ‘the main challenges’ facing the global economy, including ‘persistently high unemployment’ particularly among the young, financial stress in Europe and high levels of government debt.

The G20 also called for the withdrawal of emergency stimulus measures in countries such as the United States to be ‘carefully calibrated and clearly communicated’ to minimise volatility on the financial markets.

Speculation that the U.S. Federal Reserve is about to start reducing the level of support for the U.S. economy has plunged a number of emerging economies into turmoil.

The G20 is made up of developed countries and emerging markets accounting for 90 per cent of global output and two-thirds of the world’s population.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

G20 and America’s defining moment…

WATERSHED MOMENT

The G20 summit that ended in St Petersburg yesterday failed to produce any kind of agreement on the Syrian crisis. The chasm and bridge separating the United States and Russia on Syria is as wide as it has ever been. Yet, few such gatherings in recent years have offered a truer picture of how and where the real balance of global power lies. A genuine watershed in international affairs may at last have arrived; replacing a vestige of what has been referred to of late as the ‘Arab Spring’ – a term synonymous with upheaval and chaos spreading through many Islamic states.

Related:

The two-day gathering in St Petersburg have confirmed many things. It underscored, for example, just how determined Vladimir Putin is in reasserting Russia on the world stage. It displayed quite clearly, too, that a mercantilist China will do nothing to unsettle its economic interests, and in the process laid bare Europe’s total inability to act on its own.

A senior Kremlin official was reported to have said that no one pays any attention to Britain, a ‘small island’. But could the same not be said of the rest of the EU? Germany, for instance, Europe’s economic powerhouse, is notable only for its deafening silence. France, eager to push a military agenda in punishing the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons, is unwilling to do so without America’s lead. Other G20 participants wring their hands in aghast and disbelief at what is happening in Syria, but most are keen to shriek away from any involvement. At a moment of high international drama, it leads us back – as it invariably does – to the United States and its role in the world.

It shouldn’t have required a Kremlin official to point out Britain’s diminished influence in the world; the empire ended more than half-a-century ago. But, like it or not, with the United Nations no more than a fractious and divided talking shop, the U.S. is the closest thing we have to a global policeman. No country, it has been argued, has the right to behave as such, and America’s actual ability to change history, for all its military might and superpower status, is sometimes exaggerated – not least by itself. We need to look no further than the sorry state of Iraq, a decade after George W Bush’s invasion, to provide clarity to the argument. In any major crisis, however, all eyes turn to Washington, as they are now in Syria as the regime is accused of violating a ban on the use of chemical weapons. Syria is a signatory against the banned use of such weapons, and yet here we have a paralysed UN Security Council that is powerless to enforce an international binding treaty.

With a vote in Congress on the use of U.S. military force in Syria to be held on the 9th September, the next few days will be decisive. Britain’s role on the world stage has been diminished given the veto in the House of Commons last week, but for President Obama the stakes are vastly higher. On Syria, Mr Obama’s approach has been feckless. First, he declared that Assad must go without saying how, and then laid down his ‘red lines’ over the use of chemical weapons. Later, he announced his decision to use force, and more recently has passed the buck to Congress on Capitol Hill. Deep down, many will suspect that he would prefer to stay well out of Syria given what has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Syria is ablaze and arguably much more contentious than anything the United States has dealt with in the past 30-years. Mr Obama’s uncertainty in how to proceed in Syria is resonating in all corners of the world.

If present indications are anything to go on, the House of Representatives could well follow the House of Commons in opposing military action. If so, a definitive moment will have arrived. Unlike David Cameron, Obama will either defy his legislature and go ahead with strikes, or he will acquiesce, and there will be no military response. If military action is taken off the table, not only would Barack Obama’s presidency be gravely weakened at home, but in the eyes of the world so too would the credibility of America as a global policeman. Either way, a watershed is at hand.

Standard