Pacts of Convenience

Simon Heffer, who has come a long way since he supported the Iraq War, writes:

Following a lengthy golfing holiday that symbolised how he has become the most ineffective U.S. President and leader of the civilised world in decades, Barack Obama has announced that America is prepared to use air strikes against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

However, Britain will not join in.

Cynics might say this is because defence cuts mean we haven’t enough planes, or that after Tony Blair’s disastrous war against Iraq (which led to the present mess), the public won’t tolerate any more mindless foreign interventions.

But the real reason is that attacking the Islamic State would mean allying ourselves with Bashar al-Assad, the tyrant of Syria, who, only a year ago, David Cameron wanted to launch a joint strike against.

Thankfully, MPs voted against the idea. Similarly, Congress stopped Mr Obama. Those decisions have now been proved to be very wise.

Although Mr Obama says the use of air strikes does not mean the U.S. is backing Assad, they will inevitably throw a lifeline to a man who has shamefully used chemical weapons against his own people as he desperately clings on to power.

For our part, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, says the decision not to participate in air strikes won’t be ‘revisited’.

To add to the sense of confusion, it was later reported No 10 had contradicted his remarks.

The truth is that our foreign policy is an utter mess, as it has been throughout this Government, thanks to the inexplicable decision by Mr Hammond’s otherwise talented predecessor, William Hague, to become marginalised and seemingly devote a lot of time to fawning over the actress Angelina Jolie.

As a result, Britain has become increasingly impotent in the world.

Of course, Assad is a monster, but such is the threat of the Islamic State to this country’s security, with jihadis returning here intent on murder and mayhem, that we should ditch the concept of an ‘ethical foreign policy’ — trumpeted by Robin Cook when the Blair government took office in 1997 — and concentrate on protecting Britain’s interests.

History shows we have often had to make pacts of convenience with undesirables such as Assad.

Indeed, if our ancestors had refused to deal with such evil men in the furtherance of British national interest, God knows what would have happened.

For example, Hitler was beaten only after Britain, and later the U.S., made an alliance in 1941 with Stalin, who had starved to death an estimated seven million people (including three million children) and who had ordered the murder of an estimated million political prisoners.

Referring to his deal with Stalin, Churchill said: ‘If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.’

Yet, even if faced with another Hitler, I’m sure today’s politicians would not contemplate making a deal with the modern-day equivalent of Stalin.

Attlee’s Labour government, after the war, also recognised the need for good relations with another unsavoury national leader — Spain’s General Franco — at a time when Britain was fearful of communists controlling the Straits of Gibraltar.

In the previous century, this country’s status as a world power was strengthened by Disraeli’s willingness to deal with Otto von Bismarck, whose brutal policies had led to the defeat of France, the seizure of part of Denmark, the humiliation of Austria and the steam-rollering of small German states to form the Second German Reich.

In India, too, Britain consolidated power by placating savage local despots and operating a policy of divide and rule.

And we won the Battle of Waterloo with the help of the Prussians, who, just 20 years earlier, had ruthlessly assisted in the partition of Poland, wiping that country off the map.

The truth is that if we want to protect British interests, we can’t always pussyfoot around with moral niceties.

Sometimes, realpolitik dictates that you must occasionally sup with the devil if you want to survive.

Thus, today, as we confront the threat of the Islamic State, it doesn’t mean we are endorsing or supporting its enemy, President Assad, any more than fighting against Hitler in 1941 meant Britain backed Stalin’s barbaric domestic policies.

The Americans understand such practicalities of statesmanship much better than we do.

Famously, U.S. Secretary of State Sumner Welles is said to have told Franklin Roosevelt that financially-corrupt Nicaraguan President Somoza was a ‘bastard’. Roosevelt allegedly replied: ‘Yes, but he’s our bastard.’

It is time our leaders today realised that too many of our bastards have, in recent years, been ousted by people whose values pose a very grave threat to our way of life — and that it is vital they act to preserve the few we have left.