Peter Oborne writes:
I have been studying Sir Lewis Namier’s essay on
diplomacy, to be found in his wonderful volume In the Margin of History,
published on the eve of the second world war. It contains some important
advice:
‘No man is lightly to be chosen for the post of British Foreign Secretary who speaks any language but English; or at least, a man burdened with such accomplishments should be made to take a vow never to speak any other language.’
‘No man is lightly to be chosen for the post of British Foreign Secretary who speaks any language but English; or at least, a man burdened with such accomplishments should be made to take a vow never to speak any other language.’
Here is the great historian’s reasoning:
‘He is certain not to know every foreign language which matters; and if he is familiar only with one, he tends to develop an undue bias in favour of that particular nation. But if, worst of all, he prides himself on such knowledge, and finds pleasure in jabbering that foreign lingo, then he is lost and essential British interests are in jeopardy.’
Namier cites approvingly the example of Lord Salisbury, who ‘knew French, but never talked anything but English to foreign statesmen or diplomats’.
‘He is certain not to know every foreign language which matters; and if he is familiar only with one, he tends to develop an undue bias in favour of that particular nation. But if, worst of all, he prides himself on such knowledge, and finds pleasure in jabbering that foreign lingo, then he is lost and essential British interests are in jeopardy.’
Namier cites approvingly the example of Lord Salisbury, who ‘knew French, but never talked anything but English to foreign statesmen or diplomats’.
Namier assumes throughout, however, that Britain
is an independent nation. As a result, his thesis — compelling in 1938 — is no
longer applicable. Our current crop of foreign secretaries (David Miliband and
William Hague are good examples) tend to be useless at foreign languages.
But this has caused a problem that Namier, writing in 1938, could not have anticipated. Fundamentally they only really understand American, and so tend to do whatever the USA wants.
But this has caused a problem that Namier, writing in 1938, could not have anticipated. Fundamentally they only really understand American, and so tend to do whatever the USA wants.
This brings me on to my book, published last week
and co-written with my friend David Morrison. We demonstrate how our US allegiance
has distorted the British attitude to Iran.
Viewing the country through US lenses, we uncritically accept the bellicose proposition that Iran is an aggressive power ruled by irrational clerics, hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, which they would use to bomb Israel.
Viewing the country through US lenses, we uncritically accept the bellicose proposition that Iran is an aggressive power ruled by irrational clerics, hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, which they would use to bomb Israel.
We show that every part of this thesis is
nonsense. Iran has not invaded another country for 200 years, it has never
threatened its neighbours, and (according to US intelligence) does not even
possess a nuclear weapons programme, let alone nuclear weapons. Again and again
(as we prove) Iran has offered a settlement with the West, and been rebuffed.
Once we accept that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, under close safeguards, we may find it surprisingly easy to strike a deal that can satisfy all sides. The alternative is too ghastly to contemplate, and unnecessary.
Once we accept that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, under close safeguards, we may find it surprisingly easy to strike a deal that can satisfy all sides. The alternative is too ghastly to contemplate, and unnecessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment