The Tribune

THE biggest overhaul of NATO since the Cold War was truly transformational. This was the verdict of its Secretary General after last week’s historic summit in Madrid. He and others claim the 30-strong alliance has been reinvigorated and galvanised into action with a new unity and sense of purpose.

As well as reinforcing its resolve to continue to support Ukraine, NATO adopted a new “strategic concept” to widen the scope of its defence deterrence elsewhere in the world beyond Europe. Finland and Sweden were formally invited to become members and the leaders of Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea also attended the meeting.

How different all of this is from the image portrayed by French President Emmanuel Macron when he said in 2019 that NATO was becoming “brain-dead” as he pushed for a new standing European army. Now, some three years later, the alliance is not only in robust health but is getting even stronger with a new purpose as its member countries agree to higher spending so that it not only knows what it wants to do but also has the means to achieve its aims. What has made that difference is, of course, Ukraine and the West’s reaction to Russia’s unprovoked and barbaric invasion, unleashed four months ago, that has resulted in repeated atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law that have caused unspeakable destruction and suffering.

So, how has NATO really changed as a result of this highly successful summit? The alliance has exceeded expectations in confronting Putin with unity and single mindedness. It strongly condemned Russia’s aggression and has provided Ukraine with the military means to protect itself and to fight back successfully. It was clear from the start that, if Putin got away with his invasion without effective challenge, there could be serious consequences worldwide. NATO has therefore ensured that he will not be allowed to do so. Europe’s boundaries must not be changed by force and the rules-based international order should always be defended and preserved. Moreover, the conflict is already having repercussions around the world with a surge in energy prices and shortages of food and fertiliser. The Western democracies have also demonstrated their staying power in their declared willingness to back Ukraine to the bitter end and prevent it from being crushed and forced into a false peace through prematurely ceding territory in the east of the country to Russia.

At Madrid, it was agreed that support for Ukraine, both military and diplomatic, should be stepped up even more and that NATO’s eastern border should be strengthened. Leaders agreed to huge increases in the number of troops deployed in Europe. The US is sending major reinforcements and existing NATO defences on its eastern flank will be strengthened substantially to supplement local forces. Some 300,000 troops across the continent are being placed at high readiness in case Russia threatens an attack on any member of the alliance.

As for the new strategic concept, NATO is now for the first time addressing the challenges emanating from China as its “stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values”. The alliance will seek to counter Chinese as well as Russian efforts to achieve political, economic and military gains and influence in Africa, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. It will also become more involved in the fight against terrorism and will share intelligence more readily – and its overall aim will be to continue to preserve the peace, prevent conflict and protect the security and values of the West.

It is the case, of course, that the issue of earlier NATO expansion eastwards remains, in the eyes of some people, controversial. But, at the risk of oversimplifying a complex issue, many now regard it as a myth that somehow NATO was responsible for the current crisis. It is purely a defensive alliance as demonstrated by Finland and Sweden – both known as peace loving countries which have been neutral for decades - now choosing to join. Moreover, before the invasion there was never any real prospect of Ukraine itself becoming a member which might have been seen by Russia as a threat. By his actions, Putin is now forced to face the situation he was trying to avoid – the expansion and strengthening of NATO on his borders. Furthermore, whatever the ultimate military outcome, it is now clear that it will never be possible to hold down in the longer term a country which refuses to bow to his will.

At the Madrid summit, there was talk about the importance for NATO of deterrence and, in particular, deterrence by denial. It is invariably desirable to avoid having to repel an attack from a potential adversary by convincing him that the cost of such an attack would be prohibitive. That was what kept the peace during the Cold War – the threat of mutual annihilation through the use of nuclear weapons. So it appears that NATO’s concept of collective defence is not just about being prepared to defend its Allies but to deter an attack by ensuring that NATO-backed forces could plainly inflict sufficient damage on a likely enemy to show him that the costs of aggression would be higher than the potential gains.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has spoken about deterrence by denial in relation to Ukraine. This appears to mean the need to convince Russia that it will fail to achieve its intended goals because its forces cannot prevail against the Ukrainian defences. Clearly, at the time of the invasion Russia expected a quick victory. But, as time has passed and more and more arms and equipment are being sent to support Ukraine, some people now hope that this form of deterrence will bring about an end to hostilities as Putin eventually accepts he cannot win militarily – except, perhaps, in a limited area in the eastern Donbas region of the country?

China in breach of international commitments

It seems that yet again there has been little US mainstream media coverage of a significant event elsewhere in the world – this time, the 25th anniversary of Britain’s handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. The visit by President XI Jinping to attend the ceremony in Hong Kong to mark the anniversary on July 1 was his first trip outside mainland China since the COVID pandemic.

As a reminder of the immediate history, the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 created a new status for Hong Kong of “one country, two systems” at the time Britain handed it back to China. This was enshrined in the Basic Law constitution of the territory, and it provided for a special semi-autonomy guaranteeing democracy in the territory for 50 years – that is until 2047 -- including freedom of assembly, free of speech and elections and an independent judiciary, all of which underpinned Hong Kong’s role as a global financial hub. Thus, Hong Kong was supposed to be governed in a way not found in mainland China. In recent years, however, China has been criticised for stepping up its control of the territory in an effort to curtail freedoms, including enacting laws and reforms that stifled free speech.

Pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong pushed back against this and demanded fully democratic elections. In 2019, the territory was rocked by massive anti-government protests which precipitated violent and extended clashes with the police. But the Communist Party of China soon reasserted its authority.

There was a heavy crackdown on dissent and introduction of a harsh and sweeping new security law in 2020 under which numbers of activists, democracy supporters and opposition politicians were arrested. Election laws were revamped to enable only “patriots” to run for political office which China claimed was necessary to ensure long-term stability and to keep opposition politicians with so-called unreliable views about democracy out of Hong Kong’s legislature.

During his speech at the 25th anniversary celebration, President Xi praised Hong Kong for overcoming “violent social unrest” and restoring order and stability. He explained that Beijing had “comprehensive jurisdiction” over the territory and this should be respected even though, like Macao, Hong Kong was allowed to maintain a capitalist system and a degree of autonomy under the vision of one country, two systems. This model, he said, was working well to protect the city’s prosperity and stability and had the unanimous support of Hong Kong residents – a claim that has been ridiculed by the last British governor of Hong Kong – so it should be “maintained for a long time”.

Unsurprisingly, the British government has hit back against China, with Boris Johnson saying that 25 years ago “we made a promise to Hong Kong and we shall continue to do all we can to hold China to its commitments” - and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has stated that there has been a steady erosion of political and civil rights and that the National Security Law had stifled opposition and criminalised dissent.

However this issue is viewed, what is clear is that China wants to continue to retain the economic benefits of Hong Kong’s capitalist system as an international financial centre and is prepared to accept that that means keeping certain rights for the territory as a separate system which do not apply to mainland China. But, at the same time, the Communist Party prizes the idea of oneness and national unity above all else. So China regards Hong Kong as part of the motherland and it must bend to the will of Beijing irrespective of obligations in international law - and it remains to be seen what implications, if any, that may have for Taiwan.

Perception and reality

It is self-evident that a columnist should be careful to distinguish fact from opinion. This is almost a truism but is nonetheless worth repeating. With that in mind, I wonder whether others have been as puzzled, as I have been, by a number of bald and unsubstantiated statements and assertions about British colonialism and prospects for the monarchy in a recent piece in The Tribune. In slower time, I hope to present a rather different perspective on the issue.

Moreover, it has made me reflect on my comments last week about Britain being a country in many ways on the wrong path under its present Conservative government. Although there can be no doubt about the harsh times being experienced by so many - and that there are a number of problems which ought to be fixed by the politicians -- there is also a rather more positive side that should not be ignored. For example, with most people having had at least two doses of the COVID vaccine, the public has been liberated from the pandemic restrictions so that life has returned to some sort of normality, including a return to large gatherings.

There was the Platinum Jubilee last month and the summer has brought flower shows and village fetes, air shows, music festivals like Glastonbury last week and all the variety of summer sporting events for which Britain is famous – not least football’s Cup Final, top-class horseracing, international test cricket, the British Grand Prix motor racing and, of course, Wimbledon.

So, despite the perceived failures of government and problems like inflation, crime, immigration, industrial unrest, congestion at airports and unresolved difficulties in relation to Brexit – to name just a few – many people are at least relieved that their personal freedom has been restored. Add to that the warm summer weather and the long light evenings, and is it any wonder that a smile has returned to even the curmudgeons among the British people? A study of the UK press shows that more and more are realising that perhaps there is something to be grateful for after all.

• Peter Young, OBE, is a retired career diplomat living in Nassau. He is a former British High Commissioner of the Bahamas.