Latest article by Keith Best:
When and how is intervention acceptable?
The drama is unfolding as I write and events may well overtake me – but some of these reminiscences may merit a longer durability. At an ephemeral level the military intervention and seizing of the head of government in Venezuela (let alone any future administrative occupation and control) by the US sends a dismal signal to the rest of the world – and could be taken to be an encouragement to Xi Jin Ping to invade Taiwan and Russia to occupy other parts of Europe or those states which have recently gained independence from Moscow. Therein lies a danger, especially if we are seeing a polarisation into a new Monroe Doctrine (now, seemingly, referred to as a “Donroe” doctrine) of superpowers acting with impunity in their own “back yards”. No doubt from the perspective of the White House this is a manifestation of MAGA and securing the USA’s defences and strength in a polarised and dangerous world in which control of the “Western Hemisphere” (including Greenland) means denial of influence or interference from both China and Russia (it is true that they both have lost their foothold in Venezuela). It will be portrayed as bolstering the land of the free and the home of the brave as a beacon for the troubled world.
What is the extent of President Trump’s ambition for Venezuela with its massive crude oil reserves on which he has already set his eyes? Is it, by way of a referendum of the people of Venezuela to incorporate it as a state of the United States? For a narcissist leader it would firmly put him in the record books! The greatest expansion of the USA was by buying territory (Louisiana Purchase 1803) although maybe the vendors did not really know what they were giving! Alaska was bought from Russia in 1867. Hawaii was annexed in 1898 after the overthrow of its government. Samoa was acquired by the United States in 1900 after a civil war and the US Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark in 1917 (maybe Greenland will succumb to the same fate!). The Panama Canal Zone was bought in 1904 but returned to Panama in 1979. I mention all this just to show that there is plenty of precedent for such territorial aggrandisement which could include Venezuela with popular consent: after Chavez and Maduro with the offer of US bribes and prosperity as well as the votes of the diaspora in Florida desperate to go home it is perhaps not too far-fetched to think that there could be popular support.
This, of course, is not the first time the US has flexed its muscles in its own back-yard (without much regard for international law): the invasion of Granada under Ronald Reagan (neglecting to give prior warning to the Head of State the UK Queen!) in 1983 - following the invasion there was an interim government appointed and then a general election (a useful precedent?). Then there was the intervention in Libya in 2011 - described by President Obama as his “worst mistake” because there was no ongoing political plan and, clearly, the lesson of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which suffered from the same defect, had not been learned. Coupled with the disaster of the Vietnam War and then Afghanistan it is perhaps fair to state that, on balance, US military involvement overseas has not been particularly successful. We must now await the outcome of Venezuela. Will that be the end? Speaking aboard Air Force One President Trump noted that Cuba now faces serious economic difficulties due to the loss of Venezuelan oil support “Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know how they’re going to hold on. All their money came from Venezuela, from Venezuelan oil. They’re not getting any of that anymore". There are many Cuban exiles in USA and even more Americans who long for legitimate Cuban cigars (presently denied them)! Maybe Colombia will be next. Who will stop him (hardly Congress – at least until the mid-term elections – and many Americans will see a manifestation of MAGA in what is being done and feel proud?
We are already into a post-rules-based-order system in which, as in most periods of history, might has been right (it was this on which the colonial system was based) and we have been beguiled only recently in historic terms by the belief that we can apply rules of war and conduct on states that have no realistic fear of meaningful punishment. The retribution comes later when revolution and regime-change strike - as they always do!
The much-quoted Westphalian world (the two Treaties in 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War in which some eight million people had perished), while safeguarding Christians of non-dominant denominations their right to practice their faith, established the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad. The Peace of Westphalia established the precedent of peace reached by diplomatic congress and a new system of political order in Europe based on the concept of co-existing sovereign states. The Westphalian principle of the recognition of another state’s sovereignty and right to decide its own fate remains one of the foundations of international law today but the subsequent creation of human rights mechanisms such as the Geneva treaties now also encompasses the interest of other states and international organisations in what states can do legitimately both within and outside their own borders – untrammelled sovereignty has been curtailed by the rule of law even if, in reality, it is a paper tiger.
As we have just celebrated the eightieth anniversary of the first gathering of the newly created United Nations in Methodist Central Hall, London, it is timely to ask for how long and extensively have we lived under the international rules-based system or is it a comforting fiction that we have mouthed to make ourselves feel that humanity had finally found a substitute for brute force and conquest. Certain measures in the past have attempted to create reassurance between the major nuclear powers through greater transparency (indeed, I was part of one myself when British nuclear scientists and I went to Moscow in the early 1980s at the request of the Soviet Academy of Sciences to discuss mutual inspection of nuclear tests) yet many of these have been eroded or ignored. As another example, the Treaty on Open Skies established a programme of unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the entire territory of its participants. The Treaty was designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. It entered into force on 1 January 2002 and currently has 32 party states. Yet on 22 November 2020 the United States withdrew from the treaty followed by Russian formal withdrawal in December 2021 citing the US withdrawal and the inability of member nations to guarantee that information gathered would not be shared with the USA. Maybe we should be thankful that 32 other countries still subscribe.
In answering the question posed above, however, we need to separate principle and intent from practice and reality. Franklin Roosevelt’s vision was of an United Nations which governed international relations and he was prepared to sacrifice the liberties and future of Poland in order to ensure that the then Soviet Union under Stalin signed up to it – for without Russia it could not be globally embracing. The problem was, as with so many international treaties, that to get as many other states as possible to subscribe they had to feel that the obligation was not threatening to their basic sovereignty. It is easy to see now how the seeds of its own impotence were sewn in giving the five victorious nations of the Second World War (which, of course, included Nationalist China and not Mao’s communist regime) a right of veto in the Security Council; we now see that as a cause of the inability of the Security Council to act according to its mandate but at the time was a price necessary to pay for adherence. Moreover, there was a common view among many of the Western states that the next war was to be with Russia and was almost inevitable. The direct consequence was the nuclear arms race and the Cold War – living under the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) could hardly be argued as living under the rule of law. Perhaps it is amazing that in so many international treaties states have been prepared to trade a degree of sovereignty for what was perceived to be a greater good and reinforced security (NATO’s Article 5 commits a non-combatant participant to war if another is attacked; the International Criminal Court [ICC] requires states to renounce the impunity of their Heads of State etc).
It is no surprise, therefore, that as the very basis of the UN was and remains the nation state that nation states will limit any real interference with their autonomy. While the good intentions and principles for a fair world free from the scourge of war were enshrined in the organs of the UN, what they lacked along with so many subsequent treaties was an effective mechanism for enforcement. So how are decisions enforced, if at all? Article 10 of the UN Charter, which defines the functions and powers of the General Assembly, states “The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and … may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or the SC or to both on any such questions or matters.” In other words, resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on agenda items are considered to be recommendations. They are not legally binding on the Member States. The only resolutions that have the potential to be legally binding are those adopted by the Security Council. The website of the UN states that its work “is carried out in many ways - by courts, tribunals, multilateral treaties - and by the Security Council, which can approve peacekeeping missions, impose sanctions, or authorize the use of force when there is a threat to international peace and security, if it deems this necessary.” The International Court of Justice, designed to adjudicate on issues between states (such as territorial disputes), is competent to entertain a dispute only if the states concerned have accepted its jurisdiction (hence a long-standing campaign by some INGOs to encourage mandatory jurisdiction – but even that would leave open the matter of enforcement of a judgement). The ICC’s provisions apply only to those states that have ratified it – which, therefore, excludes China, India, Russia, and the United States. It is true that the Security Council can approve peacekeeping missions, impose sanctions or authorize the use of force when there is a threat to international peace and security but we are then back to the problem of the use or threat of use of the veto which has so often rendered the UN ineffective. To examine examples of attempted enforcement is beyond the scope of this article but the lack of effective enforcement is a permanent hindrance to the realistic observation of the rule of international law. In the current geo-political climate this is hardly likely to be remedied.
Global reaction to the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty has been interesting. Significant parts of the British Labour Party (although the Government is trying to hedge its bets) have expressed opposition; the Conservatives have sat on the fence with it being too early to judge! So what are the legal implications of what, on its face, is a gross breach of international law against aggression (a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court but only in respect of those recognising it - the US is not a signatory).
The USA has never recognised Maduro as Head of State of Venezuela (significantly, with some exceptions, those who do so are within the Chinese or Russian sphere of influence). None in the Western sphere of influence have recognised Maduro. Lawyers will argue that his seizure (albeit from within Venezuela’s sovereign territory) was a legitimate law enforcement action following his indictment in USA (presupposing that it is recognised in Venezuela). Is it akin to the search and kill action that took out Osama bin Laden in 2011? On 16 March 1998, Libya issued the first official Interpol arrest warrant against him which was still in place at his death and on 4 November 1998 he was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in New York on charges of Murder of US Nationals Outside the United States, Conspiracy to Murder US Nationals Outside the United States and Attacks on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death). There were several attempts to kill him in different jurisdictions until he was shot and killed by Navy Seal operatives in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Few will mourn both the death of bin Laden and the arrest of Maduro but they both arguably represent extra-international-judicial authority – another nail in the coffin of the rules-based order.
We all are having to adjust to a new, authoritarian, uncertain and unprincipled world until humanity once again wakes to the knowledge that the rule of law should apply as equally to the international order as it does in a local community.
Keith Best
10/01/2026
I hope that all our readers had an enjoyable Christmas and on behalf of all I trust that the New Year will bring peace, reconciliation and sensible counsels for a better world. I sketch below our current crisis of democracy.
In the UK the greatest challenge for any government seeking true devolution in which major decisions are taken closer to the people they affect is to wrest fiscal control from the Treasury. Local government elections will always be used by voters as a verdict on central government until they realise that the bulk of local expenditure is actually raised locally whether through sales tax or other mechanisms rather than provided in rate support from central government. Such a change would enable local politicians to initiate incentives for industry, innovation, hospitality and other ways to boost their economies and create healthy competition and example. Every new legislative body created in my lifetime (and I am a founder member of the Tory Reform Group fifty years ago) is elected under a proportional system, introduced by both Conservative and Labour administrations. It means that every vote counts and that people can vote positively for parties rather than negatively against them as stimulated by first-past-the-post. Westminster is now isolated in not adopting a system that was created in the UK in the 19th century. The Mother of Parliaments cannot hold its head high while we have an antiquated voting system and our second chamber (the Lords) is not elected by the people at all – devolution would enable that to be done on a regional basis. Edmund Burke wrote that “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation” and we need that change now in order to reduce the apathy and slide into scepticism about our democracy so worrying especially among younger people. Proportional representation may see election of those we do not like but they are better confronted in the Parliamentary system rather than at the barricades of under-representation; it may yet be the means of other parties’ own preservation.
Keith Best, Chair.
Do the people or the politicians fail a democracy?
We all know the old trick: if you run an autocratic dictatorship you call it “democratic”! The former DDR (Democratische Deutches Republik – East Germany), DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) readily spring to mind. It fools no-one but sounds good. Yet what happens when a true democracy fails or is degraded? Is the fault of the people or the politicians?
I am not the first to point out that in many countries the concept of democracy as a form of government is under threat, not least from young people. In August 2025 a survey published by the Adam Smith Institute showed that 33% of 18-30-year-olds would prefer authoritarianism to govern Britain rather than democracy. The John Smith Centre UK Youth Poll 2025 shows that young people in the UK still believe in democracy but they are worried about its future. Democracy is backed over a dictatorship by 57% to 27% but young people agree ‘democracy in the UK is in trouble’ by 63% to 24%. Alarmingly, that 27% stated that they would rather live in a dictatorship. In Europe a Berlin study showed that only half of young people in France and Spain believe that democracy is the best form of government, with support even lower among their Polish counterparts. More than one in five – 21% – would favour authoritarian rule under certain, unspecified circumstances. This was highest in Italy at 24% and lowest in Germany with 15%. In France, Spain and Poland the figure was 23%.
Democracy is so much more than plural voting in a wide enfranchised electorate. As indicated in a recent seminar by Prof. Paul Lemmens it is an environment in which there is tolerance of opposing views, a process of debate leading to informed decisions and a culture of general acceptance of and compliance with the will of the people through their elected representatives and where the rule of law predominates.
It is possible that future generations of Americans will have cause to thank their present President as he tests the constitution almost to breaking point and demonstrates where its failings may be. The founding fathers thought that they had devised checks and balances that would create a perfect democracy (despite amendments to it from the very start) but its weaknesses are now being exposed.
Those close to, such as Steve Bannon, and advising the Administration maintain that all power flows from the elected President and that the Department of Justice and other agencies are expressions of that power to be used in furtherance of the President’s aims. That has been tested with a refusal to comply with a court ordering the return of deportation flights and the issuance of executive orders on tariffs and other matters on the basis that they are dealing with national emergencies, arguably beyond their original intention. The critics complain that turning the rule of law and the courts into mere expressions of executive power denies the ability to act as an effective constraint on unbridled power. What about the Congressional check? Unlike the UK where the executive is embedded in the Parliamentary system and can be abused as a result (although the rule of law prevails as we saw recently a Prime Minister having to reverse an unlawful prorogation of Parliament) in USA the Congress is separate from the Executive and should act as a brake on excess power – it works but only so long as the Congress is not itself controlled by the Executive in the same party system.
We should not underestimate the effectiveness of an impartial rule of law that applies its norms to both rich and powerful as well as the poor and dispossessed: the surmounting statue on many courts is Justitia (from Isis, Themis and other deities) holding the balance but is blindfolded (from 16th C onwards) so as to show impartiality and uninfluenced by external appearance and unimportant matters. Where the rule of law fails is admirably explained by Sir Thomas More in Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons” in which he accuses his headstrong future son-in-law William Roper (who has told him that he would “cut down every law in England to get after the Devil”): “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
The founding fathers, of course, wanted to prevent any doctrine such as that of the divine right of kings exemplified by the Stuarts and by words put by Shakespeare into the mouth of Richard II “Not all the water in the rough, rude sea can wash the balm from an anointed king”. Yet they may not have fully realised that by the time of the American War of Independence Great Britain had already established a constitutional monarchy through the Act of Settlement 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689, which established Parliamentary supremacy and limited the monarchy's powers.
So what are the hallmarks of an enduring, effective democracy that is seen to work and, in the inimitable words of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, provides government of the people, by the people for the people? In may not be as efficient as an authoritarian regime (witness Churchill’s remark in the House of Commons “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”) but, usually, it is one that guarantees citizens’ rights under an impartial rule of law that can call to order even the highest political authority in the land (see the way in which the British courts ruled unlawful Premier Boris Johnson’s attempt to prorogue Parliament).
Many constitutional lawyers and eminent academics have sought to define democracy from ancient to modern times but for world federalists (and, I hope, others) there are certain hallmarks which are essential if this form of government is to command universal respect – the benchmarks against which to judge existing democracies.
The first, of course, has to be the franchise. Should all citizens, irrespective of their education and sentience be entitled to vote? For years the so-called Mother of Parliaments in Great Britain denied a large number of those affected by its decisions the right to participate. Magna Carta was a compromise to satisfy the landed gentry or barons, the grandiloquently named Great Reform Act of 1832 redistributed parliamentary seats to new industrial towns and took them from "rotten boroughs" as well as expanding the electorate by changing voting qualifications to include middle-class men who owned property worth at least 
There is a constant debate over whether there should be some qualification of understanding of politics to earn the right to vote (and in most democracies much more needs to be done in schools to equip young people to understand their political systems) but generally this is seen as discriminatory and the simplest is to allow a universal franchise. A further controversy is whether its exercise should be compulsory (as in Australian federal elections) or voluntary but several countries that had a compulsory requirement have moved from compulsory to voluntary voting. It can be frustrating when so much blood and effort has gone into securing the right to vote in the past that many people do not exercise the right but, ultimately, that should be their choice (on 28 March 1979 during the vote of no confidence in the Labour Government which it lost by one vote and so brought down the government an independent republican MP Frank Maguire, who seldom attended anyway, famously remarked “I have come over here to abstain in person"!).
A critical aspect of any democracy is the voting system. Although we British like to describe our Parliament as the “mother” of all others I rather fear that such an accolade may not now be justified. Our Second Chamber (House of Lords) is unelected and its members are there through patronage and or main legislative body, the House of Commons, is elected on a system of first-past-the-post which is increasingly anomalous. Every new legislative assembly in my lifetime in the British Isles is elected by PR/proportional representation (Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly/Senedd); in Scotland local government elections were changed to a proportional system and in Wales each local authority can ask the people if they wish to have a different system. We may yet see change: both local Labour Party constituency associations and their national Conference have passed motions in favour and if things go badly for them in the May local elections they may see PR as a way of saving some of their Parliamentary seats in the next General Election. PR has been derided in the UK by some who are wedded to first-past-the-post and claim that it is a “foreign” concept but often in ignorance of both our own electoral history and that PR was conceived by Thomas Hare a 19th Century British lawyer who invented the single transferable vote system which is now used in national elections in Ireland and Malta, in Australian Senate and state elections and in city elections in Northern Ireland, the U.S., New Zealand and Scotland. It is a system of PR which ensures through second and subsequent preferences that the electorate end up with a politician who commands broad support (whereas under first-past-the-post many are elected on a minority of those voting). Disillusion only grows if people do not get the representative of their choice and leads to a negative attitude ie people vote against political parties to stop them rather than for them.
All democratic systems should have a constitution or a basic law which determines how it can be changed (usually via an entrenched provision requiring a specific majority of the legislature for approval) and which sets out its constituent elements. The UK famously has no written constitution (although much has been codified into law) as against the written US Constitution with its various amendments. Germany has its Grundgesetz or Basic Law against which all legislative proposals are measured. There are many other examples all of which, nevertheless, subscribe to the concept that a constitution is a supreme law that cannot be changed with impunity. In a High Court ruling against the UK’s Attorney-General in January 1977 one of Britain’s most famous judges Lord Denning (before whom I had the privilege to appear as a barrister) stated “To every subject of this land, however powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller's words over three hundred years ago, ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you’” in reference to the English writer and physician Thomas Fuller who used the phrase in 1732. This echoed a more famous occasion when the English jurist Sir Edward Coke famously told King James I that the King was "under God and the law". This occurred during a significant confrontation around 1607, when Coke was the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and King James I, who believed in the divine right of kings, felt that he had the right to personally adjudicate legal cases.
It is an essential element that no Minister or government official should be above the law. In recent memory a British Prime Minister has been found to have acted unlawfully against the constitution (see above) and had to comply. Such a provision is not only a safeguard for the citizen against abuse of power but is also critical to the maintenance of confidence in the system. We must wait and see what measures may be taken in the light of the extensive use of Executive Orders without Congressional agreement by President Trump. In the UK we call them Henry VIII orders (because that monarch used them extensively) and a worrying trend in legislation is to leave detailed provisions not in the body of the legislation itself but delegated to secondary legislation or Orders in Council which do not have the same Parliamentary oversight.
There is another aspect of illegality which needs to be addressed and which, sadly, confronts many countries whether democracies or not: corruption. It is a cancer at the heart of any government and undermines trust in not only individuals but also in institutions themselves. Personal enrichment and lack of accountability are fellow travellers – so any system has to have a rigid process of accountability, declaration of interests, disinterested investigation into allegations and strict enforcement. The principle has to be that even minor breaches are unacceptable and will result in dismissal from office. Corruption is not restricted to financial impropriety but also to abuse of power and extension of authority beyond established limits.
What system of Government is best? Very much depends on the history, geography and culture of a country. There are those which have become unified from previously separate parts – such as Germany or, arguably, the USA. These are federations from the bottom up. It is much less common to see a devolution from an existing central power into newly created semi-autonomous bodies. Some countries like India and Russia are so large and diverse culturally, ethnically and linguistically that a federation is a natural choice (even though some such are subject to powerful central control). The principle of a federation, however, is central to public confidence in the system of government because it relies on the concept that decisions are taken at the lowest level closest to the general public as possible and that only decisions which transcend local issues are transferred upwards to a higher authority.
A democracy that does not attend to these issues is one that is likely to fail or need reinvigoration. When that happens should we blame the people or the politicians? It will depend on the circumstances but it is usually a combination of both: complacency or apathy on one part and inactivity on the other. The people deserve better.
END
25/12/2025
"A comprehensive approach to combating Modern Slavery: the next steps"
Speech by Keith Best to webinar of Stop Trafficking International on 29 November 2025
In order to combat modern slavery we need to be clear about its complexity and the many various forms it takes in our troubled world. I have been to India and observed the rag-pickers, the children who roam the streets looking for discarded scraps of cloth that can be made into garments once enough is assembled, we have seen on film the children in the wider Indian sub-continent who work in the tanneries and stitch shoes as well as being involved, working by candlelight, in delicate work where the dexterity of young hands is essential. In other parts of the world modern slavery takes on different forms: for the Uyghur it is forced labour camps and the extinction of their culture akin to the re-education camps we saw under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Then there is the appalling obscenity of trafficking girls for prostitution often with the promise that they will be working in hospitality or as shop assistants.
The Global Slavery Index, from the Walk Free Foundation in Australia, defines slavery as "situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power or deception". Modern forms of slavery can include debt bondage, where a person is forced to work without pay to satisfy a debt, child slavery, forced marriage, domestic servitude and forced labour, where victims are made to work through violence and intimidation. In a report on 31 May 2016 the BBC concentrated on five areas such as the seafood industry where thousands of people are trafficked and forced to work on fishing boats, where they can be kept for years without ever seeing the shore, about 3,000 children from Vietnam alone thought to be working in British cannabis farms and nail bars, the International Labour Organization’s estimate that there are 4.5 million victims of forced sexual exploitation, the many children across Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East who are forced to beg on the streets by criminals and what the BBC called “behind closed doors” in which domestic slaves are being exploited in our own very neighbourhoods.
Anti-Slavery International adds forced and early marriages and those born into slavery to the list. Walk Free’s Global Slavery Index lists the 10 countries with the highest prevalence of modern slavery as North Korea, Eritrea, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, Russia, Afghanistan and Kuwait and states that four of the five world regions — Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific and Europe and Central Asia — are represented in the list of countries with the highest prevalence. In some countries modern slavery is institutionalised. Eritrea, for example, has the world’s second highest prevalence of modern slavery (9 per cent of the population), representing an estimated 320,000 people. The Eritrean government runs a mandatory national conscription program through which citizens between the ages of 18 and 40 must undertake military service but typically are forced to perform work of a non-military nature.7 The length of this national conscription is indefinite, with reports of Eritreans spending decades in service of the government.
All this sets a dilemma for organisations like ours wishing to end this continuing indictment on humanity. Where to start first or must we conduct our campaigns on a broad front? Take child labour: to ban the use of children condemns them and their families to starvation whereas tolerating it in its fullest extend condemns them to a continuing life of slavery, never able to escape from it. We should applaud the increasing numbers of employers who can be persuaded to allow children time off to study and improve themselves with the greater prospect of securing better and more remunerative work. We should concentrate on encouraging this. Although it may not end child exploitation overnight it creates an opportunity for them while enabling them still to feed themselves and their families. We should take a different approach, however, where governments either condone or themselves practice modern slavery. For them we should employ the full capacity of sanctions, banning imports of goods and services obtained through modern slavery and exposing them politically to universal moral obloquy. I fear that for many countries their own narrow commercial interests prevent this being applied – so it is not just the countries from which such goods and services come but also those who purchase them who should be put under the spotlight.
I have set out previously our four-point approach which is, first, to draw up a list and then write or otherwise communicate to certain domestic suppliers of goods and services a request that they publish overtly either on items they supply or in some other generic way a statement that they can certify that such items have not been produced using modern slavery. This would be the kite mark. We do not want to impose added unnecessary burdens on businesses but we should seek to persuade them that this is in their own best interests of marketing their products in the way in which it is now compulsory to state on labels the contents of foodstuffs etc. A further approach would be to collective representative organisations such as the CBI, Federation of Small Businesses, Institute of Directors etc, not least to get them on our side and them to persuade their members.
A corollary and the second of our four-point approaches is the engage with the general public: to get them interested in purchasing goods and services that are certified as being free from modern slavery, to invite those who are shareholders of public companies to attend their AGMs and otherwise engage with them in the same way that environmentalists and others are doing over company attitudes towards carbon emissions etc. By encouraging the general public to take such an interest will reinforce our message to companies that it is in their commercial interests to certify that they are not, however inadvertently, engaged in modern slavery. It is also a way of gaining greater publicity for the general campaign.
Thirdly, we must identify and work with other existing organisations that are seeking to combat modern slavery, not least so that we can co-ordinate our activities and not merely duplicate them. This is all about building a coalition of like-minded organisations to bring about change which is so much more effective and likely if it is planned in co-operation.
Finally, our fourth limb is to engage with policy makers, Parliamentarians both nationally and internationally to seek to persuade them that regulations should be introduced to require producers to publish “no slavery involved” notices on their products in the same way in which they are required for reasons of health and safety. Hopefully, this may lead not only to domestic legislation in many countries but also an international treaty setting out these objectives.
We now have the excellent 2025 CCLA UK Modern Slavery Benchmark report launched on Thursday 20 November which shows that while companies are improving their compliance with modern slavery regulations, many are not advancing to leadership positions on the issue. Progress includes more companies achieving compliance, but gaps persist in areas like transparency, remediation, and comprehensive risk management. As a result, CCLA is increasing engagement with underperforming companies to encourage improvement.
Unseen, which is a UK charity providing safehouses and support in the community for survivors of trafficking and modern slavery as well as running the UK Modern Slavery & Exploitation Helpline and working with individuals, communities, business, governments, other charities and statutory agencies to stamp out slavery for good has commented on the report. It states that CCLA’s benchmark remains one of the most influential tools for assessing how companies address modern slavery. It evaluates organisations on their compliance with the Modern Slavery Act, alignment with Home Office guidance, and the steps they take to identify, address, and prevent exploitation in their operations and supply chains. Rather than simply checking for the existence of policies, the benchmark looks at how well companies are putting commitments into action. This makes it a valuable source of insight for businesses seeking to understand where they stand. These are the sorts or organisations with whom we should seek to work so that overall, working together, we can move inexorably and comprehensively towards the elimination of modern slavery as our forbears did 200 years ago to rid the world of slavery itself. Theirs and our work on this will never be finished but if we can make significant advances we shall have not only alleviated the suffering of millions but also moved humanity towards a greater civilisation.
END
Fighting old battles all over again!
Do you get the feeling that the world is in retreat from all those victories which could be claimed since the last world war? Many of these victories were battles that we never felt we might have to revisit - yet here we are again as we see a diminution in the rule of international law, withdrawal from globalisation and resumption of narrow nationalism, world cooperation consensus on climate change and measures to save our planet, the prospect of a resumption of nuclear testing after years of restraint and aggressive trade restrictions, emasculation of the UN, rise of genocide without sanction, – all which, we know, will endanger world peace and prosperity and human cohesion. It is a far cry from the ideal of the Universal Peace Federation which is to see the realisation of one human family under God and a peace highway around the world!
Those of us who were activists in the 1970s saw great advances, not least the creation of the International Criminal Court at the end of that decade. The World Federalist Movement/Institute for Global Policy played a key role in this achievement by forming a world-wide coalition of support among civil society organisations and international lawyers have been kind enough to state that without that involvement we would not now have an ICC.
Trying to recreate a climate of internationalism and interdependence based on a common agreed rule of law with a universally accepted judicial interpretation to which all states are bound together with observance of human rights and the dignity of each individual coupled with enforceability against both states and individuals may seem a tall order in these troubled times. Sometimes, as we debate these issues in our own organisations, it can feel lonely. But why? We are not alone! There is no exact number for the total number of peace NGOs globally, but estimates suggest there could be millions, as there are an estimated 10 million non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide in total. Some organizations are dedicated specifically to peacebuilding, while others have peace as a component of their broader work. Many share our goals and, when we know of them, we invite them to become member organisations of WFM. What irresistible strength there would be if we all combined and exerted pressure of that collective will of civil society. The creation of the ICC would seem tame in comparison by what could be achieved. One of the first lessons of politics is to know who your friends are and to rally them in support.
While it is right that we should pursue our goals and specific projects we should never forget that one way to succeed is to harness the support those who are seeking the same ends and present a solid front. Just as Stalin, who was wary of the Vatican due to its international influence and its opposition to communism, asked dismissively "The Pope? How many divisions does he command?" so we must recognise that those who hold the reins of power and the capacity to make meaningful change will be more attentive if they see a combined public movement (WFM is not a “Movement” for nothing!). Being right is not enough – we must also be persuasive.
One of those victories that needs to be revisited arises from the current threat of President Trump to resume nuclear testing which, no doubt, would then stimulate other states to follow suit. The U.S. last tested a nuclear bomb in 1992. Russia's last test was in 1990. China stopped in 1996. This is against a background of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which is considered the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime and is based on three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The treaty includes commitments to pursue negotiations in good faith on nuclear disarmament and the states parties meet every five years to review it and it was extended indefinitely in May 1995. Despite 191 states having joined the treaty some nuclear-armed states like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have not joined. We should not forget that the only country ever to relinquish its nuclear arsenal voluntarily was Ukraine in 1994 in return for security guarantees (under the Budapest Memorandum) – which may well be a source of regret with what has happened!
A resumption of testing by USA would lead inevitably to it by other states with increased peril of accident and miscalculation – a step closer to nuclear war.
Yet, sadly, the increased potential for use of nuclear weapons is already with us not just in the heated threats and exchanges between Russia and USA but also in the capacity for their deployment. A report by Reuters published on 21 April 2022 sets out the devolution of decision making on the use of Russian tactical nuclear weapons: a small briefcase, known as the Cheget, is kept close to the President at all times, linking him to the command and control network of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces; the Cheget does not contain a nuclear launch button but rather transmits launch orders to the central military command – the General Staff which has access to the launch codes and has two methods of launching nuclear warheads, either to send authorisation codes to individual weapons commanders, who then execute the launch procedures, or a back-up system, known as Perimetr, which allows the General Staff to initiate the launch of land-based missiles directly, bypassing all the immediate command posts.
It is often stated that generals fight a new war on the basis of the last conflict yet technology is now challenging this concept and questioning the utility of established weapons such as tanks, manned personnel carriers and artillery. Cheap drones, automated vehicles steered by robots and high technology such as cyber attacks will increasingly dominate the field of battle.
Finally, can we afford to try to modernise and make fit for purpose our international institutions in the current geo-political climate? A failure to do so risks making them seem even more irrelevant to current leaders as well as to a new generation that expects effective action. The danger in trying to do so risks opening the floodgates and ending up with solutions less favourable than what we have. The UN and its institutions were forged in the febrile atmosphere of the end of the Second World War, with many participants having fought in both world wars, and the advent of the Cold War. Although many of the founding principles remain as valid today as they were then there is no doubt that institutionally these institutions are no longer fit for purpose. 50 states signed the UN Charter on 26 June 1945 with Poland signing later that year, bringing the total of founding members to 51; most of Africa was still under colonial rule and the Permanent Five members of the Security Council (UNSC) represented the victors of the Second World War (including nationalist China now Taiwan). The world has moved on and the P5 no longer represent the five most powerful nations, either economically or militarily, and are certainly not geographically representative. There are currently 193 member states in the United Nations. In addition to these full member states there are two non-member observer states: the Holy See and Palestine.
The answer to the question of whether we seek a review of the Charter (including tackling the different issue of the membership of the UN Security Council and use or threatened use of the veto by the P5) has to lie with the mood of the General Assembly (UNGA) of states and global public opinion. The UNSC has come under increasing criticism from member states and on 26 April 2022 a landmark resolution was passed without a vote at the UNGA on the use of the veto: it requires the Assembly president to convene a formal debate within 10 working days of a veto. The resolution aims to provide a mechanism for accountability and public scrutiny of the veto power, as the Security Council can be paralyzed by its use. Interestingly, it was tabled by Lichtenstein and co-sponsored by 83 Member States, including three permanent Council members, namely France, United Kingdom and the United States. During the debate Mexico’s representative saw the resolution as an important step forward in strengthening United Nations accountability; Mexico, as a founding member of the United Nations, opposed the veto at the 1945 San Francisco Conference and its decision to accept a veto was based on the principle of responsible use of that power.
Another aspect of the current political environment is the more organised and effective voice of civil society and those NGOs that want to see change. There are not only many more civil society organisations than in 1945 but they are more vocal and better organised. Modern media, especially social media, did not then exist but now mean that opinions can be shared and people influenced on such matters more than ever previously: there may be more conflicting views and fake news but the global public has found a voice. Political parties are now wary of alienating the public on issues such as climate change as these are matters that have universal appeal. Likewise, the desire for peace and a better world order is now gaining more ground. It was President Eisenhower in those former days who said “I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.” For all these reasons, from a position of being fearful of what vested interests in the super-powers might do with a review I have been persuaded that there is now enough momentum to make it a viable option which could deal with some of the existing anomalies.
That mechanism for change, of course, already exists in Art.109. Recognising that the world was changing the UN founding nations realised that for it to continue to be relevant it had to have a capacity for change. Perhaps they were influenced by Burke’s dictum that "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation". Consequently, Art.109 required that there could be a review conference to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council. True that there was a high bar to acceptance of any change which required that any alteration of the Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference “shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.”
Most importantly, Art.109 specifies that “ If such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly following the coming into force of the present Charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the General Assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council.” Consequently, in 1955 the UN General Assembly established a committee to meet annually and report on the possibility of holding this review conference, as required if such a conference had not been held before the tenth annual session. This committee continued to operate until 1967 but the general review conference has never been held. Calls for reforming the Security Council go back for over thirty years, when in 1993 the UN General Assembly (UNGA) created an Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council. The saga continues but inaction is having the effect of stultifying the UN system – and it is the only one we have! There now needs to be a far greater collective will among both states and civil society organisations to get moving before it is too late.
Keith Best
05/11/2025
Sleepwalkers
Essential reading for any student of the First World War is “The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914” by Christopher Clark demonstrating how none of the combatants really wanted or expected war, despite the fear of being left behind in military preparation seen as a threat in others, yet somehow found themselves engaged in the then bloodiest confrontation in world history which left its mark both geopolitically and socially on so many nations and created the pretext for the second great war in a generation. Now, history never repeats itself yet as, presciently, George Santayana wrote in his 1905 work The Life of Reason, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Are we sleepwalking into another global crisis with the consequence of world war?
Wars are born of territorial acquisition (or re-acquisition as its protagonists will often argue), fear of a dominant neighbour, clash of ideologies or demagogues’ desire to gain popularity or divert popular opinion. We have seen it all in the last one hundred years and those casus belli remain in many parts of our current world.
Very few of the population study, let alone understand, the global marketplace and financial markets and perhaps fewer still who make major political decisions affecting us all, yet these have a profound impact on politics. The doomsayers (or are they soothsayers?) are now predicting at some time in the near future we shall see a crash equivalent to 1929 and the Great Depression, the oil crisis of 1973 or the financial crisis of 2008. The indicators are there: global crisis around hotspots such as Ukraine, Taiwan, Kashmir, the Middle-East (if the peace does not hold) and others, the ideological clash of autocracies against democracies, a trade war with tit-for-tat tariffs and so many industrialised countries with a greater debt burden as a percentage of their gross domestic product and propensity to borrow even more and high domestic taxation all of which is becoming unsustainable coupled with the runaway price of gold as countries and investors avidly purchase the recognised safe haven in times of trouble. Just as with the dot.com bubble we are now seeing massive investment (as well as cross-investment) in artificial intelligence and other technologies that may all burst. If even some of these factors assume prominence, let alone all of them at once, then the impact could be both profound and long-lasting and see a reorientation of a state of affairs that many, complacently, take for granted.
The sad reality, not least for some of the reasons set out above, is that the world no longer has the means or mechanisms with which to deal with such a crisis. The international rules-based order is being trashed by many countries that openly ignore international instruments and treaties to which they are signatories, the only international organisation we have, the UN, is in disarray and has lost confidence and there is insufficient capacity in the financial system and reserves (other than printing money the result of which we know only too well) to come to the rescue.
What can be done? It is trite but axiomatic that prevention is always better than cure. We all must hope that the uneasy peace holds in Gaza/Israel (yet with so many details yet unspecified) and we need to see a conclusion to the war in Ukraine which, come next April, will have lasted the same duration as the Great War. That conflict, however, exemplifies the problem of uncertain reactions. Russia is not winning the war but still has capacity to wage it notwithstanding its economy now being on its knees and a probable need for a further conscription of fighters. Just as we saw with Hitler in the closing stages of the Second World War (when Germany knew that it could not win) he launched a further offensive (Battle of the Bulge) and the Nazis hastened the killing in the extermination camps; just as with the Japanese (although not an accurate analogy) when they knew the war was lost they increased resistance and fighting to the last person and encouraging suicidal missions; so we cannot tell what Putin will do if backed into a corner. Would there be a desperate diversion into occupation of an Estonian city with a majority Russian population or forcing a route to Kaliningrad through the Suwalki Gap thus a direct test of NATO’s Art.5 resolve? If NATO did not react immediately that would send a dire message (and might be the tipping point for Xi JinPing to launch his attack on Taiwan while the Western nations were preoccupied). I can only hope that in the secretive corridors of power in NATO we already have the response.
I have made the point already that history does not repeat itself but we cannot deny that today’s leaders will have their historical heroes and may be tempted to follow their examples (even if the previous result was a disaster – the chancer always thinks that things will turn out differently). Putin’s behaviour in his creeping re-acquisition of territory regarded historically as essentially Russian is too close to Hitler’s quest for lebensraum for the German people and the gathering under one Reich of the German speaking peoples: there are, of course, many Russian speaking peoples in what the former hegemony of the Soviet Union was.
Is there a better way of dealing with this overt threat than merely adopting the caution of si vis pacem, para bellum? If it were true for Vegetius (“De Re Militari”) in the fifth century is it still true today? Must we arm ourselves to the hilt in order to deter aggression on the basis that it becomes too costly to the perpetrator? Logic dictates that deterrence should work – but it falls away if the protagonist is neither logical nor realistic and, instead, harbours a favourable view of fate and a belief that those who are threatened will choose not to react for reasons of pusillanimity or indecision. That was certainly true of Hitler (who never believed that Britain would go to war – perhaps encouraged by Chamberlain’s naivety and the appeasers like Halifax and the admirers of the Nazis in some parts of the aristocratic set). We have yet to see if Putin is of the same frame of mind. We may not have the luxury of being able to afford to find out the hard way.
The approach to these polarised superpowers by the UK is critical to our future. Do we try to straddle all three of China, Europe and the USA and risk being excluded by all or do we ally ourselves with one and risk being vilified by the other two. It is a tightrope that none would wish to walk – but is it necessary?
There is, of course, another way but itself beset with difficulties and blind alleys. Arguably, it is what President Trump attempted only just a few months ago. It is to humour Russia and to dangle a stick that offers more than merely hanging on to Crimea and the Donbas. Russia feels the hurt of the loss of global influence, of not being included in the world’s leaders’ deliberations of being a pariah and having to look for friends among an old and uncertain often antagonistic neighbour China. Dangling the carrot of being accepted more into the civilised world of diplomacy and negotiations is not appeasement but appealing to another aspect of a nation’s (and leader’s) vanity. It is manifestly obvious that those who extract most from a vain, narcissist leader are those who play to that personality – far be it from me to make any personal comparisons with existing leaders! This approach, offering something different from threats of retaliation, may be beyond the experience or gameplan philosophy of those to whom it is directed but it is at least worth an attempt at de-escalation. It is perhaps because it is not the usual tactic of a bully and those who see main force as a crucial factor that it might just work. Leaders have to face both ways – they look to their obvious opponents but they also have to look behind themselves. If they stumble they are more likely to be dispatched by their colleagues and those around them than by those against whom they have been squaring up. That means that however a conflict ends they have to show a gain, a victory even if it is not a conventional one. To regain a position in the G7, the G20 and other counsels of the world could be a prize that could be sold to keep the troops happy.
In whatever way the war in Ukraine may end and however repellent, corrupt and untrustworthy may be the Kremlin with its people suppressed and denied freedom of information, those of us who value democracy and freedom will have to come to an accommodation – just as we must with China while aware that subterfuge and sabotage are their preferred modi operandi. We must keep our eyes open but still engage. As Churchill remarked "In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, and in Peace: Good Will". After all, it is only when there is a dialogue that positions and red lines can be understood as well as those areas capable of compromise. This may mean dangling some economic benefits as a bargaining chip. In addition, we should never forget the lessons of divide et impera – a concept practised with great effect by the British in India. As more an more munitions made by Iran are used in the Ukraine war and their remains dissected so it becomes clear that so many of their component parts are made in China. China has not crossed the red line of providing actual armaments but its technical contribution is enormous. If we are to isolate Russia there is a strong argument for a rapprochement with China – while being mindful of the inherent dangers. Opening rather than closing markets for Chinese goods (now that the domestic Chinese market seems saturated) may be a way of weaning the Chinese away from supporting Russia.
Risky, even dangerous? Yes, but nothing ventured nothing gained. Had the West been less triumphalist and more pragmatic when the USSR collapsed we might have averted future aggression. The Allies attitude towards Germany after the Second World War, the Marshall Plan and other attempts to keep the country free from a bolshevik take-over were an act of realpolitik just as was the Americans’ recruitment of the Nazis’ rocket scientists. Cynical, perhaps, but far more an accommodation for the wider good. During the Troubles in Northern Ireland the British Government steadfastly maintained that it would not negotiate with terrorists – but as we now know talks were continuing with the IRA beneath the surface leading to the Belfast-Good Friday Agreement. Duplicitous, dishonest, misleading? Yes, but necessary - for without such dialogue one will never know when the time and politics for peace may be present. It would be good to believe that behind our backs such dialogue is going on in even the most unpropitious circumstances.
END
Keith Best
31/10/2025
Speech by Keith Best to The Central and Eastern European Security Forum: Warsaw 16/17 June 2025
EUROPEAN AID TO UKRAINE
- WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
The extraordinary resilience, fortitude, perseverance and courage of the people of Ukraine is bred from the turbulent past of just over one hundred years in which independence was gained briefly after the First World War but in 1922 was subsumed into the Soviet Union with a history of invasion, starvation and atrocities in its wake. There followed the appalling Holodomor or Great Famine perpetrated by Stalin’s flawed agrarian reforms in which some 4 million Ukrainians starved to death and were even prevented from fleeing the country. It was carved up by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and suffered atrocities at the hands of the Nazis and then the Soviets. The Second World War saw also that terrible fate suffered by so many European states under occupation of citizens fighting on both sides with all the legacy of mistrust that leaves. Some 6 million Ukrainians died (including 1.5m Jews). We can all understand why Ukrainians value their independence gained in 1991 (with more than 92 percent of voters approving it in a referendum), recognized now by countries (Poland and Canada being the first with Boris Yeltsin on behalf of Russia later that same day). Some 100 countries (including China and the other P5 in the Security Council) have recognized that independence.
Despite the signing of the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, in which Ukraine agreed to hand over its nuclear weapons (a first and uniquely in history) in exchange for guarantees of security and territorial integrity, Russia commenced a war against it and in 2014 annexed and then launched a proxy war in the Donbas via the breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic followed by the full invasion in February 2022. As you all know, Putin has never accepted Ukrainian independence and therein lies much of the problem. The Russian controlled area includes large mineral deposits. It is small wonder that Ukrainians put little faith in Russians and their treaties.
Ukraine must be considered an important part of Europe both because it has been the bread-basket of many countries (its grain exports are a significant part of global food security, with destinations including both developing and developed countries, some 57% going to developing countries, a large share of which goes to Africa and the Middle East) and its valuable minerals (now much in occupied Russian hands as stated). It is strategically a buffer between Europe and Russia, a fact exemplified by the war. The approach of Europe must be economic, political, military and cultural.
I have stressed the economic importance of the country and that must be bolstered by further increases in trade in both goods and services. The cost to rebuild Ukraine is high with the World Bank and UN estimating that demining and clearing unexploded ordnance efforts alone will cost $34.6 billion over the next decade. The total cost of Ukraine's reconstruction and recovery is estimated at $524 billion over the next decade. Yet, the total value of Russian assets frozen by the UK and its allies is estimated to be around $300 billion. This figure includes both state assets and private wealth, with the vast majority of frozen assets being state reserves. The UK itself has frozen approximately £25 billion of Russian assets. This should increasingly be the source of funding reconstruction. In order to stimulate markets as well as preventing another round of starvation and civil unrest in Ukraine we must be prepared to continue substantial humanitarian and medical aid. Much is already being done but the legacy of war is not only physical loss of limbs, faculties and other disability but also deep mental trauma which in some cases will need lifelong treatment.
Politically, Ukraine was granted candidate status to the European Union on 23 June 2022 and accession negotiations officially opened on 25 June 2024: that process must not be stalled. The EU must not dangle Ukraine on a string in the way that it has with Turkey even if full accession is, realistically, more than a decade away.
Militarily it is obvious that under the current administration the USA is not a reliable partner but is it wrong to think that Europe cannot step into that breach. The 64% of arms imports by European NATO states that came from the USA in 2020-24 was the largest share in any five-year period of the past two decades but the level of reliance on US imports varies a lot depending on the types of arms. It is true that Europe's NATO members imported more than 60% of their weaponry from the US between those years and, as with the continent's reliance on Russian oil before 2022, over-dependency on a single supplier is making the continent vulnerable to political decisions taken elsewhere. The F-35 combat aircraft made by Lockheed Martin is a US-dominated programme to produce a fifth generation aircraft and relies heavily on foreign involvement - as much as 30% of the fully equipped jet is estimated to be British for example. But the F-35 is highly dependent on its US-controlled computer systems, so while talk of a disabling so-called kill switch seems overblown, it would degrade over time without coding updates and US maintenance. The UK has also raised concerns that its fleet of F-35's could be grounded by the USA. Defense minister Luke Pollard responded on 10 March saying that "the UK maintains the freedom of action to operate the F-35 Lightning at a time and place of our choosing," without giving further details.
As the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has pointed out, however, when it comes to arms for land forces, such as tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery systems, reliance on US suppliers is low. Most European NATO states tend to buy from domestic suppliers, from other European states or from other non-European states (e.g. Israel and South Korea), but not from the USA. What really boosts the volume of arms imports from the USA in the SIPRI data is combat aircraft. European NATO states received over 150 combat aircraft and over 60 combat helicopters from the USA in the past five years and, at the end of 2024, they had another 472 combat aircraft and 150 combat helicopters on order from the USA. The European and US arms industries are deeply intertwined-through supply chains, joint ventures, licensed production deals and more. For instance, several European NATO members are involved in producing components for F-35 combat aircraft, both for themselves and for other customers. Since Russia's full-scale invasion, the USA has accounted for 45 per cent of the arms imported by Ukraine, while European NATO states together have supplied 47 per cent. European states could potentially supply more major conventional arms to Ukraine, such as combat aircraft, long-range missiles and ground-based air-defence systems if they decided to prioritize this over domestic procurement and exports to third states.
European countries' reliance on US munitions, especially for artillery shells, has been significant, particularly after the start of the war in Ukraine, but is decreasing as Europe increases its own production. While the USA initially provided substantial military aid, including artillery shells, Europe is now actively working to boost its own manufacturing capabilities and reduce dependence on US supplies. Rheinmetall's new artillery plant, for example, will produce up to 350,000 artillery shells annually, nearly doubling its initial target of 200,000.
Lastly, there are the cultural links which time does not permit me to examine in detail save to say that such exchanges are an important component of creating greater understanding and building further a true European heritage.
In confirming the solid and unwavering support from the UK I wish to end looking at three possible scenarios to the end of a conflict that currently seems out of sight.
1.If the war continues because a ceasefire is unachievable (Putin clearly does not want it). Russia will gain further territory but only slowly over more years and its economy may not be able to sustain it – especially if there are further sanctions - but will the West become weary of supporting it? That is where our resolve and our support both economically and militarily must remain strong. If, however, on the other hand, there is a ceasefire will this curb Putin’s ambition? His views of the territorial reconstruction of the former glory of Mother Russia are for all to read and the similarities with the 1930s are chilling to the effect that there may well be a greater conflagration involving NATO (with which Putin is on record as claiming Russia is already at war). What will be next? The Suwalki Corridor, the Baltic states?
2. If Putin dies or is supplanted or the Russian economy implodes and the war has to end - will it end, however, with Russia retaining Crimea, Donbas or having to withdraw? If the former then it is reasonable to expect that after so much bloodshed and misery Ukraine will never accept that situation and there will be continuing guerilla warfare even in the face of mass Russian importation of Russians and peoples sympathetic to Russia. If the latter, a humiliation for Russia, what will the Western response be to a defeated Russia – the same triumphalism as in 1989/91 (despite Clinton’s efforts with Yeltsin in 1993 onwards) or Churchill’s admonition "in victory, magnanimity"? Russia wants to be respected and its place as a world leader recognized and there may just be the opportunity for a rapprochement.
3. Finally, if the West tires of supporting Ukraine and forces de facto annexation of Crimea/Donbas by Russia Ukraine will not accept this, however isolated it may be made – there will be continuing guerilla warfare and attacks on Russian "invaders" will endure and Europe will stand by as there is a slow but painful annexation of the whole of Ukraine by Russia – but for how long will that last, even with a puppet pro-Russian government in Kyiv? Does Russia really have the resources for a permanent army of occupation?
The only sensible and realistic course for Europe is to stand by Ukraine and to demonstrate that to the rest of the world for however long it takes.
Keith Best
Chair Wyndham Place Charlemagne Trust, United Kingdom
Chair Universal Peace Federation (UK)
Former British MP, OSCE Observer Ukraine Presidential Election, Chair World Federalist Movement/Institute for Public Policy
Patron The European Atlantic Movement
Archive
A message from the Chair about the pandemic
The pandemic spread of Covid-19 virus has caused widespread alarm among the global population and reaction from various governments in a piecemeal manner reflecting the evolving knowledge of the impact and reach of the virus. Among the obvious fears of vulnerable groups is whether they will experience infection and serious and possibly fatal results but also the uncertainty of the duration of both the medical and economic effects - people are not only dying and suffering but also becoming unemployed and increasingly finding it hard to make ends meet, businesses are closing and those relying on normal social interchange are experiencing the full rigours of a lock-down seldom seen outside wartime. There can be little doubt that, even when the virus is controlled and, hopefully, combated through an antidote, the long-lasting effects on people's lives, their livelihoods and pensions will remain considerable for many years.
"In such circumstances it is difficult to see any encouragement - yet it is there. Neighbours are increasingly becoming aware of their responsibilities to look after the vulnerable and lonely with a number of local initiatives springing up. Moreover, set against the backdrop of this pervasive virus which, like its predecessors the Bubonic Plague, Spanish Flu and others is indiscriminate in its victims, the trend towards narrow nationalism, populism and national preferment seem minor irritants and irrelevancies. Although we are now clinically so much better able to cope with such a disease the question remains whether both domestically and internationally we are more capable in the spheres of governance and economic management of our fragile planet.
"There is a frustrating absence of democratic global co-operation and it can only be hoped that in the light of such a terrible stimulus humanity can rediscover, as it did following the bloodletting of world wars and the fear of mutually assured destruction, a sense of global co-operation which led to the League of Nations, the UN and our current, still imperfect, world order - I am referring especially to the global optimism and sense of urgency engendered in the 1960s and 1970s. It is arguable that through an international body representative of all the nations (in addition to the ad hoc G20 etc) and the Bretton Woods financial bodies as well as trade and climate treaties we have already the institutions for global decisions. Yet these are not yet equipped with the authority needed to be able to deal with a pandemic or the other global issues which confront us. They remain inhibited by the belief that nations can best serve their own interests individually rather than collectively, that humanity is not one entity but still separated into conflicting and conflicted groups divided through ethnicity, race, religion, culture and language. Although our trade and financial transactions are global our attitudes and manipulation of them are national and local with consequent disruption.
"At WPCT we confront these notions and refer, instead, to an unshakeable belief that it is only through international co-operation, partnership on the basis of mutual trust and sharing equitably our planetary resources as well as the concept of one common humanity to which we all have obligations of care and concern that we can bring about a new era in human and global development. This is as true of the world as it is of our European neighbours with our shared culture, history and democratic traditions.
"I am not alone in having frequently expressed the hope that it will not take another global conflagration for us all to be brought to our senses and pursue these beliefs. Maybe, it is just possible, that we are now seeing another form of devastation beyond our immediate comprehension that will engender that sense of common responsibility and the need to enshrine that in binding, effective governance structures that will make the tragedy of these current circumstances be remembered nit just as a disaster but as a new beginning.
I hope that all our members, supporters and their loved ones and those for whom they care will remain safe throughout the duration of this crisis."
Keith Best
Working for peace, world order and the rule of law in Europe and the world
The Wyndham Place Charlemagne Trust aims to bring together people of different cultural, political and religious backgrounds to address European and world issues, not just from a political and economic perspective but from the point of view of values and beliefs, and to enlighten public opinion and influence those who shape policy.
Its supporters include politicians, academics, officials and leaders of different faith communities. Many have experience of working with or in European and international institutions, or with other research bodies and inter-faith organisations.
The Trust collaborates with other national, European and international bodies with similar interests, and aims to keep its subscribers informed of current policy and events via its e-newsletter Eurogazing.
For news about events, speeches etc please go to "Lectures"
|
Our Corbishley Lecture was delivered by Professor Tina Beattie on "Faith in Europe? - Remembering the Future" on Wednesday, 7th November 2018 Conference Room, Europe House, 32 Smith Square London SW1P 3EU We always start with a short reception at 5.30pm followed by the address and questions finishing at 8.00pm. There is no charge but we welcome donations to defray the costs especially if these can be made through Gift Aid so that we benefit from the HMRC contribution if you are a taxpayer. Please use this registation form. Please confirm your attendance and that of any colleague who wishes to come to our meetings. Forms with signature for Gift Aid should be posted to: Keith Best, Chair WPCT, 15 St Stephen's Terrace, London SW8 1DJ. Please respond by no later than Wednesday 31 October. |
Charity number 1080157 wpctrust [at] gmail.com