The Tribune

THERE can be no doubt about what to cover in this week’s column. In Britain, woke extremism is becoming more widespread and a major example of it has just come to light in the shape of Coutts & Co, a British private bank in London, which has recently cancelled, for political reasons, the account of one of its most well-known clients. Coutts is famous for handling the banking needs of wealthy individuals.

What would have been unthinkable in Britain, even in recent years, has happened. Despite being a private bank, Coutts’s parent bank, the National Westminster (generally known as Nat West) is partly owned by the government. It has become evident that Coutts and other UK banks are now closing the accounts of those of their customers whose political views they disagree with.

This is shocking and hard to believe. It should send a chill down the spines of the whole nation as well as those who traditionally look up to Britain as a beacon of democracy and an exemplar of free speech and respect for the rule of law, a nation that used to be a land that cherished freedom but whose essential liberties are now under threat from the woke revolution that is trying to impose its ideology on Britain’s way of life. What is more, to the patriotic man in the street, it will appear strange that this is happening under a Conservative government.

There is, of course, endless debate about the meaning of woke and how it should be applied to different aspects of Britain’s national activity and discourse. Some maintain it has replaced political correctness and define it as a state of being aware - especially of social problems such as racism and inequality - and being alert to racial prejudice and discrimination; and it recognises the need for greater knowledge and understanding in order to be able to challenge injustice.

All that is surely admirable. But critics say that those who make it their business to pursue ‘wokery’ pose all too often as champions of tolerance while in reality acting as left-wing zealots who resort to bullying in demanding submission to their dogma which brooks no argument or counter view on an issue. Many in the UK believe that wokeness has taken over corporations, universities, banking, the arts, the media and public institutions like the National Trust. They suggest that too many UK firms have failed to stand up to woke extremism and have allowed it to become their official creed. Critics consider the woke movement amounts to a determined assault on the Western way of life because it attempts to crush free speech by defining and relating it to the perception of issues by a limited number of people or a particular segment of society. But varied opinions in open debate should be respected, in the face of resistance on the part of extremists.

Be that as it may and whatever view one may take of the issue, a row has developed over Coutts closing the account of Nigel Farage, the former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and leading advocate of Brexit, without providing a reason. This has developed into a scandal that is engulfing Coutts and NatWest. They have been plunged into turmoil since it has emerged from internal Coutts documents subsequently obtained by Mr Farage that his account had been cancelled because his political views did not “align with” those of Coutts.

The facts, briefly, are that Mr Farage claimed that he had been ditched by Britain’s most prestigious bank because of his political views. However, the BBC had earlier quoted a source at the bank saying that his account was closed for failing to meet minimum wealth thresholds.

After the internal Coutts documents were made public, the NatWest CEO revealed she had been this source and admitted the information she had provided was incorrect. Since, for banks, the need for client confidentiality is sacrosanct - and that she had anyway lied about the position - she was forced to resign, admitting “a serious error of judgement”.

The CEO also apologised for “deeply inappropriate comments” in papers prepared for internal consideration by Coutts about Mr Farage being “xenophobic” and “racist” and said that these did not reflect the view of the bank. Soon after, the CEO of Coutts also resigned. He explained that it was “right that I bear ultimate responsibility for the handling of Mr Farage’s case,” saying that “we have fallen below the bank’s high standards of personal service”. But what poor judgement these highly-paid executives showed, not only in allowing such a practice to take place but also without thinking through the implications and likely repercussions of dismissing such a prominent person as Nigel Farage who already had a public platform and was likely to bring the matter to wider attention.

To many, Coutts must have been aware that introducing this sort of political element was wrong which may be why they changed tack so quickly when their action came to light. This makes their actions all the more outrageous because, in closing Mr Farage’s account on the grounds of his political views, the bank was acting like the arm of an authoritarian regime against a dissident. Moreover, what is worse is that it has now become clear that other UK banks are acting in the same way. People classified as “politically exposed persons” are also being “de-banked” - and the incidence of this appears to be wider than people had realised. No bank should have the right to monitor the political or social views of its clients and take disciplinary action against any so-called heretic who refuses to comply with the current orthodoxy. Banks should not be policing people’s views and second-guessing society in such a way, and the political or social beliefs of their clients should be none of their business.

Nonetheless, one potentially positive outcome of the current debacle is that Mr Farage’s case has attracted support from all sides of the political spectrum in Britain. Reportedly, the government are already considering strengthening the law on free speech and undertaking a review of the banks’ treatment of their clients including imposition of stricter rules about closing customers’ accounts – and some commentators are even suggesting that those who indulge in such high-handed and arrogant behaviour could even lose their licences.

This story is so serious that it may run and run. If so, I hope to revert to it in due course.

WEST SHOULD MONITOR ACTIVITY IN SAHEL REGION OF AFRICA

Given the lack of interest of the average American in foreign affairs, perhaps it should come as no surprise that, as far as I have been able to see, there has only been limited coverage in the US media of last week’s military coup in Niger, a land-locked former French colony with a population of some 25 million situated immediately north of Nigeria.

But this development is important for various reasons, not least the growing presence of Islamist insurgent groups in the turbulent Sahel region of Africa and the effect a new military leadership may have on Russia’s presence there.

As it happens, my wife and I have a personal interest in Niger. In the 1990s, we were part of a small group on an expedition to the Sahara when our vehicles were suddenly attacked by a mob in an isolated village. The motivation was presumably robbery or worse. Although separated from one another and with people climbing on to our Landrovers, we all managed to escape without injury by driving quickly into the surrounding bush, after which we regrouped unscathed but badly shaken up. So we survived. But in more recent times, we could not even have attempted such a trip as the whole region has been taken over by militant Islamists – not least the group in Northern Nigeria called Boko Haram that has received considerable publicity – and travel in the area is no longer safe.

Niger gained its independence from France in 1960. It is a key part of the Sahel region which is a belt of land south of the Sahara desert stretching from the Atlantic to the Red Sea and is regarded as a volatile and unstable part of the world where democracy is in retreat. The region is plagued by Islamic and al-Qaeda jihadists who control large swathes of territory even though it is dominated by military regimes which govern the neighbouring countries of Mali and Burkina Faso. Niger is rich in uranium, providing seven per cent of global supplies but has one of the lowest standards of living in the world. Strategically, it hosts French and US military bases. For France, it has been a regional military headquarters since the country’s withdrawal from Mali last year.

Following Niger’s military coup, which was the country’s fifth since Independence, General Abdourahamane Tchiani declared himself the nation’s new leader and announced that the reason for the overthrow of President Mohamed Bazoum, who has been detained, was a lack of security, economic woes and corruption.

Niger matters because during the last few years it has been an example of relative democratic stability in the midst of activity by jihadists and military governments and as a key Western ally in the fight against Islamist militants. As the only democratic country amidst a whole area of Africa run by the military - and with the ousted president working closely with both regional and Western nations against the militants - it was a bulwark against further disorder and the spread of Russian influence in the region. Now, there is concern in the West about which countries the new military regime will align with after their military counterparts in Mali and Burkina Faso pivoted towards Russia.

International reaction to the coup has been predictable. France, the European Union and the US have refused to recognise the coup leaders, and France, as the former colonial power, has sternly condemned the military takeover and called for restoration of constitutional order and the democratically elected government. The EU has suspended all security co-operation and budgetary aid, and the African Union has called on Niger’s army to return to base. The US has declared its “unflagging support” for President Bazoum and warned those detaining him that hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance are at risk, with the State Department labelling Niger not only as a key partner in the fight against the insurgents but also as the linchpin for stability in the Sahel and a reliable counter-terrorism partner against various Islamist groups linked to either the Islamic State or al-Qaeda. Only Russia’s Wagner mercenary group, who are on the ground in the region, has reportedly described the coup as a triumph.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that leaders of countries in West Africa under their regional grouping of ECOWAS have declared zero tolerance of coups. ECOWAS has declared a no-fly zone over the country and closed its borders; and it has threatened military action against Niger’s junta after giving it one week to reinstate President Bazoum. But the new military leaders have responded that they will resist any “plan of aggression against Niger by regional or Western powers”. Given Africa’s long history of coups and unsatisfactory attempts by outsiders to intervene, many will hope that any immediate military action bringing further destruction and loss of life can be avoided.

REMEMBERING THE END OF THE FORGOTTEN WAR

July marks 70 years since fighting in the Korean War came to an end. It is the anniversary of the armistice or cease-fire agreement in 1953 – though no peace treaty was ever signed - that ended some three years of fighting in what many call “the Forgotten War”. It acquired this name because it was inevitably overshadowed by the Second World War that was finally brought to a close in 1945 and then by the Cold War. But there is a widespread commitment amongst so many people, who with their families were horribly affected in one way or another by what some call one of the most harrowing conflicts of the 20th century, to commemorate the huge sacrifice of the allied Armed Forces in the Korean War.

Today is not the time or place to analyse the events that led to communist North Korea invading South Korea in 1950. But the newly-established United Nations became actively involved by supplying combat troops to support South Korea, with the US providing a majority of the forces though some 16 other countries also supplied fighting units. President Truman explained his decision to send troops by stating that “if South Korea fell, the Communists would attack other nations, resulting in World War 3.”

Casualties were high, with 37,000 Americans losing their lives and many British and Commonwealth forces also killed or wounded. It is estimated that more than half a million North Korean and Chinese troops were killed while South Korean forces also suffered heavy casualties and countless numbers of civilians in South Korea died or sustained injury.

After battle lines in the war eventually remained stable, the conflict became a stalemate with neither side ending up with full control of the Korean peninsula. Since hostilities ceased, Korea has remained divided along the demilitarised zone on the 38th parallel with both the North and the South claiming to be the legitimate government of the whole country – and most analysts agree that there remains little or no prospect of reunification. The two parts of Korea are still technically at war – and US forces and UN representatives are still in South Korea with the goal of preventing another conflict.