The Tribune

HOW dispiriting it was to learn about the Nobel Foundation’s recent decision to invite the ambassadors of Russia, Belarus and Iran to this year’s Nobel Prize award ceremony in Stockholm in December after excluding them in 2022.

The case for continuing the ban in order to send a message about their countries’ prolonged actions in Ukraine now looks even stronger than a year ago. Belarus is continuing to support Russia, and Iran is supplying drones as well as intensifying its harsh crackdown on anti-government protestors at home. So the news in the last few days that the Nobel Foundation has backtracked and U-turned by re-imposing the ban in reaction to the outrage provoked by its initial decision was equally encouraging and satisfying. This rapid reversal of its original controversial decision to rescind last year’s ban has already been widely welcomed.

This incident illustrates once again how opinions vary about how to deal with aggressors and dictators on the world stage – should it be kid gloves and friendly persuasion or meeting force with strength and vigorous condemnation in order to deter those with continued hostile intent?

Such considerations inevitably induce reflection about the controversial issue of appeasement in international affairs which, since the 1930s in the lead-up to the Second World War, has got a bad name. Indeed, it has almost become a pejorative term in the context of diplomacy as a result of the failure of the then British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, to stop the German dictator Adolph Hitler on his brutal rampage through Europe despite making concessions to him, by which Czechoslovakia had to surrender the Sudeten border region as part of the Munich Agreement in 1938.

Nonetheless, appeasement has historically been a legitimate tool of diplomacy -- if making short-term concessions to an aggressive power to avoid conflict was in the interests of a country in order to buy time, for instance, to re-arm. The trick was to judge when and how this should be used and, indeed, whether it should be used at all in the face of a determined aggressor. Chamberlain was vilified by many of his own countrymen for being so naïve as to have trusted – and been duped by -- the villainous and murderous leader of Nazi Germany.

In my view, the initial stance by the Nobel Foundation was at the very least misguided. Its justification for giving recognition to Russia and Belarus by inviting their ambassadors this year was based on what it termed the ‘need to increase dialogue between states amid deepening geopolitical division’ and that in a ‘world increasingly divided into spheres, dialogue between those with differing views is being reduced’ so it wanted ‘to involve even those who do not share the values of the Nobel Prize’.

To many people, that looked to be pusillanimous in the extreme, given that Russia had precipitated a war in Ukraine that was unprovoked. The Foundation was condemned by Ukrainians as weak and hypocritical at a time when ‘millions suffer… and the Russian regime is not punished for its crimes’ even though the extent and brutality of its actions are well documented. Ukraine has said that inviting ambassadors would have emboldened Russia and bolstered the Kremlin’s ‘sense of impunity’ about their egregious conduct and acts of evil that are so serious that Putin has already been indicted by the International Criminal Court on war crime allegations.

There is surely now little doubt that Putin himself is not susceptible to, or even interested in, diplomacy. Moreover, some people also wonder how the Nobel Foundation still wanted to offer an olive branch to Russia and Belarus after both had reacted fiercely to previous winners.

Last year, Human Rights groups from both countries accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for their work in documenting war crimes and abuse of power. In his acceptance speech the Russian laureate called the Ukraine war ‘insane and criminal’, while Belarus has imprisoned its own human rights activist laureate. Furthermore, the Russian authorities have designated Dmitry Muratov as ‘a foreign agent’ in an attempt to silence him as part of their overall crackdown on a free press and on civil society more generally. He is a Russian journalist and 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was recognized for his work to promote freedom of speech and the circulation of information.

The Western stance since the invasion of Ukraine has been consistent. Governments developed a diplomatic campaign to isolate Russia and imposed sanctions. Cultural and sporting institutions have followed their lead; for example, the governing body of world football has indefinitely suspended the Russian national team, while the International Olympic Committee said it would not invite Russian and Belarusian teams to the 2024 Olympics in Paris, though some citizens of both countries might be able to participate as independent athletes.

The Nobel Foundation bestows some of the world’s most prestigious prizes in the fields of science, economics, literature and, of course, peace. But some commentators now fear that the reputation of Nobel Prizes may have been tarnished by these latest developments; though, of course, in the past there has anyway been a degree of scepticism about the Nobel Peace Prize -- for example, when former US president Barack Obama was awarded it in 2009 for ‘his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples’ when he had only been in office for twelve days before the nominations deadline.

Although ambassadors from Russia, Belarus and Iran will not now be invited to the Nobel Prize award ceremony in Stockholm, according to reports their invitation to a parallel ceremony in Oslo for the Peace Prize still stands. If that is true, one wonders what the further reaction will be on the part of those who had earlier expressed their outrage.

ANNIVERSARY OF START OF WORLD CONFLICT

Historians regard this time of year as significant in so far as it marks the anniversary of what many consider was the outbreak of the Second World War (WW2) when Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939 following its invasion of Poland two days earlier. The latter was the final trigger for war in Europe.

Conflict had already broken out in the Far East with Japan’s invasion of China in 1937. This was the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War which lasted until 1945. In addition, in 1938 Hitler annexed both Austria and then the Sudetenland before occupying Czechoslovakia. But September 3, 1939 is widely acknowledged as the start of the global conflict which lasted until 1945 and was considered to be the deadliest war in the history of the world.

What also interests historians is the extent to which WW2 was a continuation of the First World War (WW1) – also known as the Great War - from 1914 to 1918. The debate about this is endless, and it would be impossible to do justice to the issue within the confines of today’s column. But it might be interesting to look at it briefly.

It is argued that for all practical purposes WW2 was not simply a continuation of war after a 20-year ceasefire but a result of various consequences arising from WW1, a terrible conflict that had produced unprecedented carnage. Nobody wanted another global conflict but certain factors ensured that renewed fighting would break out again sooner or later. Some historians believe that the two wars were part of a vast global conflict, and Winston Churchill referred to this in the preface to his book ‘The Gathering Storm’, published in 1946, when he spoke of another Thirty Years War – the 17th century series of wars in Europe fought by various nations for a number of different reasons.

The main factor, of course, was the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 which set out the terms for the ending of WW1 but, in the view of many, laid the foundations for WW2. It was widely considered to be too punitive and did not represent reasonable peace terms but, rather, was an ‘armistice for 20 years’. The treaty was predicated on Germany’s guilt for the war and on blaming and punishing the nation severely as being responsible for it. Germany was forced not only to accept blame but also to give up its overseas colonies and some of its European territory, limit the size of its army and navy and pay substantial war reparations. The latter crippled its economy by contributing to the reduction of industrial output and producing hyper-inflation – all of which was made worse by the Great Depression.

Many Germans saw this as a humiliation, not least because none of those defeated, which included Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, was allowed to weigh in to negotiate peace terms or even to participate at all. Germany, in particular, was upset by what it saw as the harsh terms of the treaty which Hitler and his supporters later vowed to undo.

Interestingly, the Treaty of Versailles also advocated establishment of the League of Nations as proposed by US President Woodrow Wilson. This was based on the idea of collective security so that the invasion of one country would be treated as a threat to the whole group. But the League failed largely because it required unanimous agreement before taking action which limited its ability to intervene – for example, after Japan invaded the Chinese region of Manchuria in 1931 and Italy invaded Abyssinia in 1933.

In a nutshell, by placing the burden of war guilt entirely on Germany and imposing harshly punitive reparations payments -- while also creating an increasingly unstable collection of smaller nations in Europe -- it can be said that the Treaty of Versailles partly contributed to the rise of nationalism in Germany and helped unwittingly to pave the way for another massive conflict 20 years later – and commentators point out how much more effectively the Allies managed the ending of WW2 and its aftermath.

It was good to learn recently about a significant development in the trading relationship between The Bahamas and Britain. A rum from Grand Bahama has won the race to become the first Bahamian rum ever to be distributed in the UK.

BAHAMAS BEGINS NEW TRADE COOPERATION WITH BRITAIN

With support from the British High Commission in Nassau, Bassett’s rum, which is produced by the Bahamas Distilling Company in Freeport, has secured a contract for this product to be distributed widely in the UK by Chelsea Vintners, a prestigious British wine and spirits wholesaler, importer and distributor. Reportedly, Chelsea Vintners believe that this Bahamian rum will succeed in the UK market - especially in the specialist high-end bracket - and it intends to promote it accordingly, concentrating on famous hotels in London like, for example, the Ritz and the Savoy.

Co-founder and chairman of the Bahamas Distilling Company Alan Bassett is quoted as saying that the whole team at the company ‘is excited and proud to send out Bassett’s rum, as a representation of the Amazing Bahamas. We hope that in some small way we have captured the essence of what makes the islands, the people and the culture so very special’.

It appears that, as part of its strategy to bring British and Bahamian companies together under the UK-Caribbean Economic Partnership Agreement which allows no and low duty exports from The Bahamas to the UK -- and in cooperation with The Bahamas High Commission in London – the British High Commission has been supporting several Bahamian rum producers and helping them in their efforts to access the British market.

This achievement by Bassett’s rum is impressive. Reading between the lines, I suspect it has been due in no small part to the drive and enthusiasm of the High Commissioner, Thomas Hartley, himself who has spoken of work going on to organize export seminars and trade promotion events – and that is surely to be much welcomed by all concerned.