A fascinating report in The Times today. Sir Peter Ricketts, head of the UK National Security Council , is reported to have indicated support for a strong change in the direction of Foreign Policy. Looking at the lessons from the war in Libya, Sir Peter suggests that the UK should give strong support to opposition groups fighting dictatorships, and move away from long standing recognition of countries - whatever rulers they might have.
Sir Peter is exactly right. This is exactly what 'neo-conservatism' is all about.
Although the term has become one of hysterical abuse from the left, it actually means intervening to stop mass murder and genocide, promoting democracy, the rule of law, property rights and equality towards women. It doesn't necessarily mean military intervention to achieve these objectives, although it doesn't rule it out. Neo-Conservatism recognises that International Aid - if spent correctly - alongside support of democratic opposition - can be vital tools in overthrowing dictatorship. We should learn from the appeasement of Gadaffi and stop supporting/recognising tyrannical Governments.
The Times Report is below:
Britain should be quicker to recognise emerging groups that challenge dictatorial heads of state, David Cameron’s national security adviser said yesterday.
Sir Peter Ricketts said one of the key lessons of the conflict in Libya was that the UK should rethink one of the cornerstones of Foreign and Commonwealth Office orthodoxy, of recognising the incumbent rulers of states. He said that such a shift could have major implications in Syria where Britain is encouraging the various groups being targeted by the violent crackdown of President Assad to unite into a coherent opposition.
In Libya, France was quick to recognise the National Transitional Council (NTC) when Tripoli was still controlled by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Britain held back and did not endorse the NTC until late July, four months after the start of the conflict. Sir Peter said that in future the Government “should be ready to review and adapt such policies where that is clearly in the UK’s interests to do so”.
Foreign Office officials are currently encouraging the anti-Assad opposition to present a more coherent body that overseas governments could in future deal with. Sir Peter’s report offers the most detailed account yet of how Whitehall coped with the Libya crisis.
You can read more HERE and HERE.
by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.comYou can read more HERE and HERE.
What Sir Peter seems to have overlooked is the fact that neither the Libyan NTC nor the Syrian opposition movements are committed to the values of democracy and universal human rights.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, all Britain has done in Libya is to aid the replacement of one vile dictatorship with another tyranny of a slightly different stripe.
The real question is, should the UK actually intervene at all in these affairs if that means supporting elements committed to anything less than real freedom? Sometimes it is better not to choose a team.
http://www.azure.org.il/article.php?id=587
In addition, Britain's foreign policy might be a little more coherent if it were to first tackle in a much needed serious manner the issues of lack of freedom in its own society such as FGM, forced marriages, 'honour' killings and the second class status of women in Shariya divorce courts.
Stomping around the Middle East bearing the banner of 'freedom and democracy' looks more than a little hypocritical when the world knows that some British citizens do not enjoy the equal right not to be mutilated or murdered in their own country.
The mad Islamists are now in power in North Africa, thanks to NATO.
ReplyDeleteThat was the intention, I presume.
- Aangirfan