Feebleness of United Nations

THE irony about the Syria crisis is that the West’s response is becoming more impotent as the number of innocent children and civilians killed by chemical weapons appears to grow according to the latest harrowing reports from the front line of this civil war.

That said, Parliament’s decision to veto any UK involvement in military action against Bashar al-Assad’s regime – and President Barack Obama’s volte-face in seeking Congressional approval before committing American military hardware – marks a watershed for international affairs.

After all, it would be profoundly contradictory for President Obama, and Mr Cameron for that matter, to lecture countries in the Middle East about the priceless value of democracy – and then launch a military offensive without the backing of their own elected representatives.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In this regard, President Obama, Mr Cameron and others are paying a very heavy price for the decision of George W Bush and Tony Blair to sign up to open-ended invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the flawed belief that firing Cruise missiles could bring rogue regimes to account.

Yet, while the events of recent days will make it harder for the US, UK and others to take military action in future without democratic backing, like America being allowed to use British air bases to launch strikes against Libya in 1986, the gassing of innocents of Syria continues to expose the feebleness of global institutions like the United Nations and the emergence of a political generation that is not blessed by great skills of diplomacy.

By likening the use of chemical weapons to a “red line” that could not be crossed without provoking a response, President Obama was playing into the hands of Syria’s dictator while Mr Cameron – and Foreign Secretary William Hague – only have themselves to blame for failing to build a sufficiently convincing case for British intervention, and then taking the wobbly support of Labour leader Ed Miliband for granted.

More astute leaders would have kept their options open because they had faith in the diplomatic skills of bodies like the United Nations. Yet, rather than criticising President Obama and Mr Cameron’s mishandling of this crisis, and their abiding failure to explain how weapon strikes will make Syria more peaceful in the short term, perhaps the more fundamental question is this: why is the UN not doing more to stop young children from being gassed to death by chemical weapons that were outlawed after World War One?

The last post

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

IF the Government is so committed to protecting post offices, particularly those in rural areas, Ministers will take immediate action to reverse those 35 ‘temporary’ closures across Yorkshire which appear to have become permanent because they have now been shut for more than 12 months.

These are not sub-post offices that have been deemed to be unviable. They are branches that have only closed because the postmaster has retired – or moved on. They are all locations where the Post Office gave every impression to residents that closure was a short-term measure.

Yet the fact that the branch in Coxwold in North Yorkshire has been shut for five-and-a-half years under this criteria shows that the Post office’s understanding of the meaning of the word ‘temporary’ is at odds with the dictionary definition which says such a state of affairs is “meant to last only for a limited time”.

Against this backdrop, it is difficult to argue with those who accuse the industry – and the Government – of presiding over stealth closures and hiding behind the use of the word ‘temporary’ in order to neutralise any electoral consequences.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The problem is that this approach is short-sighted because it makes it even harder to reopen post office branches at a future date. As such, perhaps there should be a time limit – three months – on the duration of short-term branch closures before the Post Office has a legal requirement to explain its longer-term intentions to those concerned.

A style of his own

LIKE the unmistakable voice of Cliff Morgan who died last week, Sir David Frost was a brilliant broadcaster and entertainer whose beguiling style lulled so many prime ministers and presidents into a false sense of security.

He will, of course, be remembered for his ferocious inquisition of Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal, but Sir David was only in a position to conduct this interview because of his tenacity.

Yet the reason that Sir David was so successful was that he was prepared to ask the questions that mattered to his viewers, and then had the courtesy to listen politely to the response.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It is a style that his successors, including Andrew Marr who made a welcome return to the BBC yesterday, should follow. By interrupting incessantly, they’re missing out on the chance of a headline-making story – such as when a seemingly innocuous question by Sir David prompted Tony Blair to announce a radical increase in NHS spending to the fury of Gordon Brown. It was typical Frost, an inteviewer who set the agenda and whose like will not be seen – or heard – again.