Putin shoulders blame, but so too must diplomatic culture

 

I'm writing this column on Thursday 3 March as Russian tanks continue their advance towards Kyiv and seem to have entered Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second city.  

 

The distressing scenes of the dead, the wounded, the frightened and the fleeing is enough to remind everyone of the horrors of modern conflict and how widespread such horrors reverberate. 

 

Let me be absolutely clear that, the direct and sole responsibility for this crisis lies at the door of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.  Any lingering sympathy a neutral person might have had for the situation of Ukraine's Russian-speaking communities in the east of the country. has been undermined by the sight of Russian attacks across the country. 

 

This is a war of aggression designed to neutralise a previously independent neighbour. 

 

My sympathies go out to those folks here in the UK with friends and relatives in Ukraine. The situation must be horrifically worrying for them. 

 

But all of the events of the last few weeks or so, do beg the question: how did we get to this point? 

 

In essence, I think that as much as Putin's excessive need for security, it is also a stunning failure of both Western diplomacy and its failure to promote free trade policies. 

 

Tsarist, Soviet or Putinesque Russia has alternated between periods of wishing to embrace the West and periods of revanchism. 

 

The sad heritage of history is that the West's own insecurities have meant that we have never really engaged with the opportunities presented by the first type of regime. 

 

As Rod Liddle, hardly a Putin apologist, has written recently "we have behaved badly towards Russia.....invading it from time to time, otherwise meddling perfidiously in its affairs and always refusing to allow the Russians what, periodically, they yearn for - to be accepted as part of the civilised western world." 

 

The British diplomatic culture, which to this day is dominated by public school types and cultures, has the most appalling track record of mismanaging Anglo-Russian relations. We have failed to engage when Russia wishes to be engaged with, and failed to prepare a robust response when they are in their wounded bear mode. 

 

Perhaps some readers might think I've got a little bit 'woke' on this topic. But the facts speak for themselves. Did you know that on at least three occasions - 1954, 1991 and again under Putin himself in the early years of this century - Russia proposed that it be allowed to join NATO? 

 

Every time, this was airily dismissed, including by British diplomats, without any serious thought or discussions. 

But where diplomacy fails, do you know what succeeds in building mutual trust and cooperation? The answer is clear: trade and trade as free and as unfettered as possible between nations. 

 

It is a self-evident truth that the more the prosperity between nations depends on the free and equal flow of goods and services, on the basis of their respective competitive advantage, the less likely it is that they will risk a conflict. 

 

So what has happened in recent years to Anglo-Russian trade? According to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade, exports to Russia have fallen steadily from $US8bn in 2011 to little more than a quarter of that by 2020. This accounts for little more than 1% of total UK trade. 

 

By contrast, the value of Russian exports to the West, principally oil, gas, precious metals and grain has grown over that time and is now more than $US12bn. 

 

Of course, this value disparity reflects the recent surge in raw material prices, but this does not account for the decline in UK exports. The fact that a free trade deal with Russia is placed on the same level as one with Vanuatu, ie vanishingly unimportant, is an indictment of successive UK Governments, as much as its their Russian equivalents. 

 

This cliff edge difference between what Russia buys from us and what we sell to it, appears to be replicated in many other Western countries. It certainly hasn't been helped by the protectionist European Union's speedy expansion into eastern Europe which has certainly alarmed Moscow. 

Having freed ourselves from the tutelage of Brussels, my hope is that the UK Government, once the current emergency is over, will be at the forefront of opening grown-up free trade negotiations with Russia. 

Of course, the West partly has only itself to blame for the current trading imbalance with Russia, especially regarding its energy dependence on the latter. 

 

The anti-nuclear power movement across Europe has been gathering pace in recent years, most notably in Germany which is well advanced in its plans to shut down all of its stations. 

 

Such a decision, of course, makes the trade imbalance with Russia even greater, ensuring that the leverage of the West is much reduced. Without the Nordstream 2 pipeline, Germany for one would probably be reduced to a three-day week. 

 

Thank goodness that the British government is made of sterner stuff regarding its investment in new nuclear build. After Hinckley Point C, I'm more and more confident that Sizewell C here in Suffolk will be given the thumbs up. Which is good for us certainly, but also good for a more mutually equal and beneficial relationship with Russia. 

 

And before any readers start accusing me of appeasement, let me repeat for a second time, the direct and sole responsibility for this crisis lies at the door of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. 

First published www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk & www.dissexpress.co.uk on Thursday, March 10, 2022

So many reasons to be optimistic

As published in the Suffolk Free Press, Thursday, April 12, 2018;




 
To be honest, I struggle with ‘experts’. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that ‘experts’ have a disproportionately negative impact on how we view ourselves and this country. In my opinion ‘experts’ are frequently bad for Britain.

You will note that I have deliberately placed the word ‘experts’ in inverted commas. This is because, in many cases, their opinions are no more – and sometimes far less – based on relevant expertise than those who are actually doing the things the ‘experts’ have opinions on. An academic and theoretical understanding of an issue can quickly become out-of-date, especially in the fast-moving world of business..

I’m not against listening to people with knowledge and experience – far from it. But ‘experts’ frequently overreach themselves and assume that their insights are infallible and of infinite validity.

I think the reason for this is that those in authority have a very narrow view as to what constitutes knowledge.

‘Experts’ are very good at playing the knowledge game. They present their insights in a formal way, using language that the powers that be, mainly politicians and bureaucrats, can cope with. In other words, they recognise a type of knowledge that can be written as a policy paper or as an academic account.

But the great and good and their favoured ‘experts’ totally fail to recognise the kind of knowledge that exists among those who actually do things: whether that be running businesses, being a community nurse or filling potholes.

Such knowledge is usually tacit – people just know what’s right and what works – or it’s informally expressed and so doesn’t get treated seriously.

That’s why ‘experts’ are often wrong and ‘ordinary’ people – you, me and the man on the Clapham Omnibus - are frequently right. As George Orwell said, “to see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.”

Nowhere has that struggle been so intense – and ‘experts’ been proven so wrong -than over the issue of Brexit.

I backed Brexit because, from my business experience, I saw that we can be a freer and more prosperous nation by not being tied into a single protectionist trading bloc.

But then I’m an optimist and have faith in the British people’s capabilities and willingness to work hard and well.

Compare that with the constant stream of negative opinions from ‘experts’ about what Brexit would mean to the economy.

Yet, in virtually every single case, they have been proven wrong.

According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, our manufacturing sector is enjoying the longest spell of rising output in 23 years.

Exports are at an all-time high according to the Trading Economics website. Indeed, in one month alone (January 2018) they increased by 1.6% over the previous month.

The export of goods to the EU grew by only 0.8%, but that to South Korea and the US was up by 20% and China by over 4%. Good signs for a truly global trading Britain.

Closer to home, Suffolk businesses are enjoying a sustained boom. The latest figures from Suffolk Chamber of Commerce’s quarterly economic survey – based on the views of real businesses and not ‘experts’ – suggests that business is booming across our county.

According to the 170 local firms who responded, the quarter on quarter figures also show a further strengthening in business performance and sentiment from Q3 to Q4 2017.

Manufacturing firms in particular are doing really well in terms of domestic and overseas sales and orders and recruitment plans.

The only main concern is that, possibly as a result of this strong performance, a very high percentage of Suffolk businesses are struggling to recruit staff. Unless this is addressed soon it could become a brake upon the further economic success of the county.

 

So, you now understand my views on ‘experts’. My solution to this problem is simple. ‘Experts’ should only be allowed to offer their opinions if they can e clearly demonstrate recent involvement in the real world.

Now, I’m more than willing to help out. Any ‘experts’ that want to see how a hard-working warehousing and logistics business works, are welcome to contact me.

Over to the ‘experts’.

 

Ends.