Orginal article here.
"This is not some quarrel in a far-away land." Yes it is.
"What happens in Georgia directly affects us." Only if we allow it to do so.
"For a start, it's about energy security." Could that be because Thatcher shut down our coal mines, and by accepting and promoting the theory that carbon dioxide emissions would wreck the planet made it difficult for the industry to be re-started?
"The Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline ... runs right through Georgia". It was put there to avoid crossing Russian territory, while also avoiding Iran and Armenia, despite the obvious fact that it would still be vulnerable to Russian attack - so what should we do, base British troops in Georgia to defend it?
"History has shown that if you leave aggression to go unchecked, greater crises will only emerge in the future". That's what Eden thought about Nasser, and look where that got us.
"... stability in the Caucasus ... is a matter for the security of Britain and our allies." Up to a point, but it could also be said about many other troubled parts of the world.
"we should accelerate the path to Nato membership for countries such as Georgia, and other democracies such as Ukraine, if that is what they wish." In other words, the Georgians et al should be given the option of committing all the present Nato members to go to war, including nuclear war, in their defence.
"The lack of clarity about Georgia's prospects of joining Nato contributed to the present crisis." The starting point was the very suggestion that these five former Soviet republics might follow the former Soviet satellite states and the former Soviet Baltic republics by first joining Nato, and then the EU.
"It encouraged Russia ... because the West was divided and uncertain." With good reason - because history has shown that making a solemn promise that you will go to war in the defence of another country can have devastating consequences.
"The knowledge that Nato membership was a real prospect would have provided Allies with greater leverage over the actions of Tbilisi's government." Actually just the rather remote prospect of Nato and EU membership seems to have gone to their heads, with the President appearing on TV flanked by the Georgian and EU flags.
"Of course France holds the EU presidency. But that is not a reason for Britain to sub-contract our entire response to the crisis to our allies." So which party started the process of sub-contracting our foreign and defence policy to the EU, under the Maastricht Treaty?
"We could be pressing for the negotiation of the strategic partnership between the EU and Russia to be suspended." Or we could press to leave the EU out of it, and instead ask the UN to convene a traditional international congress of all interested sovereign states and other interested parties to work out a new and durable settlement.
From Denis Cooper, via email (reproduced with kind permission of the fisker).
Wednesday 13 August 2008
Denis Cooper fisks Dave The Chameleon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Just because Cameron is an airhead is no reason to accept Denis Cooper's fisk as completely correct.
2 points:
1. Thatcher did not "shut down our coal mines" although her policies had that effect. She defeated the miners who had held the country to ransom from 1945 onwards (not to forget the odd strike during WW2) and who, moreover, insisted on a continuing and increasing subsidy for the mines to keep the miners paid more than their economic output was worth. The moment the miners' power was shot and the subsidies ended, the mines started to close. Whether the mining industry should have continued to receive substantial subsidies to keep going - as a premium on an "energy security" insurance policy - is another matter. I don't recall this ever being seriously discussed at the time or subsequently although I wouldn't be surprised if Scargill made some reference to it. BTW the last Conservative administration's "energy policy" which depended on using our precious - and rapidly depleting - gas reserves to generate electicity was also particularly barmy if "energy security" was a consideration.
I agree that Cameron burbling on about "energy security" when he has jumped on to the AGW/green power bandwagon is world-class chutzpah or just sheer stupidity or, more likely, both.
2. "Leaving aggression unchecked": Suez is always raised in an argument concerning the possibility of military intervention and has become a subsection of Godwin's Law. Sure Eden made a pig's ear of that one and could have dealt with Nasser differently. (For instance, how about leaving it to the Israelis? They could have entered Cairo - let alone Port Said - and toppled Nasser before the USSR could have reacted while we could have given them diplomatic cover by stalling in the Security Council.) But that's another argument. The lesson to learn is that of Hitler's reoccupation of the Rhineland. The Germans could have been stopped by an aggressive platoon of French soldiers (if the British had supported such a move) but the British and French goverments funked it and appealed to the League of Nations (sound familiar?). Anyway, there's no way we (or anybody else, including the US) would - or even could - intervene militarily in Georgia. However, that's no reason to remove our trousers, bend over and tell the Russians to do their worst. We should think seriously about penalising and inflicting damage on Russia in other ways. We should certainly resume treating Russia like the third-world autocracy (with nuclear weapons) it has reverted to. Slinging them out of the G8 (or, rather, not inviting Russia to the next G7 meeting) would do nicely for a start.
Post a Comment