Letter of the week: The legacy of lasting peace
Photo by Shaun Curry/Getty
David Reynolds' observation that the ideals of 'unity, hope, love and peace' which have come to characterise VE Day were perhaps more relevant in 1945 and 1995 is uncomfortably and inconveniently true. But while it is important to consider Bosnia, Sudan, Cambodia, and other genocides, such as Rwanda, when conducting an honest assessment of the trajectory from VE (and VJ) Day 80 years ago, it is equally important to note that they all occurred in spite of institutions such as the UN and Nato – not because of them. And without Nato, one need only imagine how, for example, the Balkans might have looked with a 'Greater Serbia' at its heart.
This is why leaders of the democratic world must recalibrate foreign policy and retain a clear focus on the values for which VE and VJ Day were fought, and ensure they are not compromised at any cost. The axis of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping has displaced the geopolitical order of the world. Those committed to democracy and unity must persevere, and remember that without meaningful 'unity, hope, love, and peace', the currency of the democratised world is debased.
Jordan Scott, Newcastle
Labour on notice
Those working in the public services have been keeping things going for years despite increased workloads, reduced real pay and other stresses. Simultaneously, cash-strapped parents have been struggling to do their best for their families.
As last week's editorial and Andrew Marr's article (Politics, 9 May) both outlined, too little is being done by the government to remedy things. The need for a 'hard reset' is urgent but the government seems largely oblivious.
A failure to reset means another four years of far less social improvement than could be attained and is needed. In all likelihood, it would be followed by a very damaging right-wing administration. It is time for Labour MPs to put the present leadership on notice – as the electorate did on 1 May. In particular the leadership needs to know that if they do not embrace progressive taxation they will be replaced.
Mike Shone, Stafford
Andrew Marr discusses what Labour needs to do to counter the progress of Reform. The people who voted for Reform want to improve their prospects and halt the decline in the areas where they live, whether that be the deindustrialised parts of the north-east and Midlands or the coastal areas which have lost their fishing and tourist industries. People living in these areas feel neglected by the mainstream parties and yearn for the lost 'halcyon days' of full employment, skilled jobs and strong communities. They have more in common with people in the deindustrialised areas of the US or Russia, which have also seen an authoritarian turn in politics, than prosperous parts of the UK.
Labour needs to confront Reform by demonstrating to these communities (and the trade unions) how skilled jobs in new eco-technology can bring back strong employment. It needs to introduce progressive taxation to encourage people back into work and reduce income inequality. It needs to show how migrants have contributed to the UK and economic growth over many years. Finally, Labour needs to decentralise and properly fund local government so that local people can be involved in local decision-making. People know their own communities better than Whitehall.
Ruth Potter, Stamford Bridge
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
No name calling
Jason Cowley's latest column about Nigel Farage raises an important point when highlighting that many of his opponents direct ad hominem abuse at him with 'ever-diminishing effect'. While this is undoubtedly a problem, it suggests that he is more sinned against than sinning. Farage, like Boris Johnson before him, is incapable of engaging in a rational debate, and often resorts to snide comments and bluster when his policies are challenged effectively. It should be the task of his opponents (wherever they sit on the political spectrum) to stop the name calling. His mask will inevitably slip and he'll show his true character to the electorate when his policies are given detailed scrutiny.
Jeff Howells, London SE25
Common law
In both her article (Out of the Ordinary, 9 May) and in her recent interview with Naz Shah, Hannah Barnes discusses the assisted dying bill as if it were a pioneering piece of legislation. In fact, similar laws have existed in at least 22 other jurisdictions for anything up to 23 years without a single one having been repealed. These laws have given terminally ill people in great suffering the opportunity to end their lives in dignity, and surrounded by their loved ones, something our existing legal system cruelly denies them. Coercion? In my experience, far from greedy people wanting to see the end of their dying relatives, it is common for relatives of those seeking an assisted death to try to dissuade them because they cannot bear to see them go. The subheading of the article is 'What will the full impact of the assisted dying bill be? We still can't be certain.' To my knowledge, not a single bill has ever been passed with complete certainty about its outcome.
Philip Graham, London NW5
Deadly stalemate
Jeremy Bowen refers to the illusion on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides 'that 'total victory' is possible' (Cover Story, 9 May). If neither antagonist is able to prevail and impose its will on the other, then it can only be a matter of time before the reality of this essential truth dawns on both parties. The utopian belief of securing 'total victory' will have to make way for the practical realism of securing a negotiated peace. Of course just how many Israelis and Palestinians will still be around to enjoy the fruits of peace is another question.
Ivor Morgan, Lincoln
Whiners take it all
Well done Will Dunn for generating a new category, 'public nuisance capitalism' (Money Matters, 9 May), which seems to be prompted by notions of individual liberty as absurdly amplified as the audio played by headphoneless commuters. It's all about taking social responsibility for what you sell consumers. Is there a parallel here with investors happy to brag about the creative risks they are taking but are then all too ready to whine about how their losses should be covered by the taxpayer?
David Perry, Cambridge
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
[See also: Pope Leo XIV's centrist papacy]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why Nato's spending plans don't add up
'They're delinquent, as far as I'm concerned,' Donald Trump vented as he stood front and centre amongst allies at a customary leaders' photo op ahead of a Nato summit in 2018. 'Massive amounts of money is owed,' the US president went on as the awkward figures of Germany's Angela Merkel and Britain's Theresa May looked on. Berlin was the main victim of the metaphorical artillery barrage against those national governments failing to meet an annual defence spending target of 2 per cent of GDP. Mrs Merkel had presided over more than a decade of neglect of the Bundeswehr, while pouring billions into Russia's budget through the purchase of cheap oil and gas. 'So we are protecting you against Russia, but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia?' Mr Trump asked sarcastically. Those chaotic 48 hours in Brussels, the Belgian capital, are said to have been the most consequential in Nato's recent history. That is until Mr Trump touches down in the Hague this week as the Western military alliance holds its traditional annual summit. Seven years on, the US president's feelings about Nato have not changed. European diplomats and officials still fear he could decide to pull US troops from the continent at the drop of a hat. That is why any talks in the Dutch capital will focus on one thing, and one thing only – a pledge to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. Most allies believe the times we live in and geopolitical challenges they face warrant such a decision. However, the main reason for signing off on a decision to hike defence expenditure by more than two-fold lies almost solely in who occupies the White House's Oval Office. Same old faces There are a host of familiar faces from the 2018 summit still floating around the alliance. Mark Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister, is now Nato's secretary-general. Pedro Sanchez remains Spain's prime minister, and France is still ruled by president Emmanuel Macron. But this time round, all the planning is designed to avert these returning politicians, or anyone who did not experience it, becoming victims of a barrage of hellfire from Mr Trump. A tale of the pre-summit tape reveals that most allies have made a concerted effort to follow the narrative required to keep the US president on the straight and narrow. And all eyes will be on Mr Trump, who made the biggest gamble of his presidency on Saturday night when he bombed Iran's heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility. The damage to the site remains unclear but, if Mr Trump has made the right move, he will have destroyed Tehran's hopes of building a nuclear weapon – at least for now. If it was the wrong decision, the Middle East could be plunged into violent turmoil and draw America into a 'forever war'. For Nato, that would mean its biggest donor turning its attention away from the military alliance, away from the Ukraine war, and towards its own war. It could also mean Nato's fears coming true – Mr Trump pulling American troops from Europe. The second Donald in the room will be Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, whose government presides over the highest defence spending per percentage of GDP in the entire alliance at 4.12 per cent. In theory, Poland is the only member state, including the US, that hits the 3.5 per cent 'core defence' target when it is signed off in The Hague. Washington only spends about 3.38 per cent, according to the latest figures released by Nato. Those figures show that 23 of the alliance's 32 allies are currently hitting the 2 per cent target of GDP set over a decade ago in 2014. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain will only reach that decade-old goal this year. Spain poses biggest challenge Mr Sanchez and Madrid pose the biggest challenge to any attempt to further increase the overall defence spending goal to 5 per cent. In a letter to Mr Rutte ahead of the Hague summit, the Spanish prime minister wrote: 'Reaching 5 per cent defence spending will be impossible unless it comes at the cost of increasing taxes on the middle class, cutting public services and social benefits for their citizens.' The letter worked for Mr Sanchez, with Spain reaching a deal with Nato exempting it from the alliance's 5 per cent target – a move that will further frustrate Mr Trump. 'Spain has just concluded a deal with Nato... which will allow us to respect our commitments towards the Atlantic alliance... without having to raise our defence spending to five percent of gross domestic product,' Mr Sanchez said in a speech from the Moncloa palace on Sunday. Spain is one of the governments arguing that hitting new Nato capability targets does not require extra money but smarter spending. Luxembourg has delivered a similar message. 'It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,' Yuriko Backes, its defence minister, recently argued. But these are rare shows of dissent, with most member states keen to flatter Mr Trump into a state where he's not willing to raise questions over the alliance's unity. Even before he entered office, most European and Canadian allies had decided to raise defence spending because of the renewed threat posed by Russia. This won't stop them from attributing those decisions to the US president. The Baltics and recently joined Sweden and Finland have surged spending in response to Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Estonia has set out plans to spend at least 5 per cent of its annual GDP on defence for the foreseeable future. Lithuania and Latvia have budgeted for more than 3 per cent. Britain's defence woes Britain has always been considered a front-runner when it comes to Nato's spending targets. Since the Wales pledge of 2 per cent in 2014, the country was one of four allies to have met the target consistently. But with 5 per cent looming as a new goal, Sir Keir Starmer risks falling well behind. The Prime Minister has committed to spending only 3 per cent by 2034, long after the envisaged deadline of 2032. British officials have argued that the country will need extra time to meet the goal of 3.5 per cent without putting government finances under unnecessary pressure. Another caveat is that the world could be considered a greatly different place in nine years time. The main change is that there will be no Mr Trump in the White House to badger European allies and Canada over their defence expenditure. Whatever happens, Britain will be likely to slip down the rankings of Europe's most reliable armed forces. Yes, the nuclear deterrent will remain committed to Nato's joint strategy, but the likes of France 's, Germany's and the Netherland's militaries will have grown at a much faster rate if their spending plans are delivered as promised. Mr Macron has promised defence spending will jump to over 3 per cent, while Berlin has set out a strategy for assuming the mantle of Europe's most powerful military, taking that title from Britain. 'We are following him there,' Johann Wadephul, the German foreign minister, said of Mr Trump's demand for spending to increase to 5 per cent of GDP. Creative accounting The consensus for meeting Mr Trump's demanded target is largely there. But the catch is that it will require a large degree of compromise and creative accounting to hit those numbers. Mr Rutte, who was made Nato's secretary-general almost entirely because of his past successes of dealing with the American, has delivered the first element of creativity. His plan for the new benchmark is to divide it up into different areas of spending. The first 3.5 per cent will be spent on areas of core defence: tanks, fighter jets, air defence systems, long range missiles and troops. The remaining 1.5 per cent will be able to include government budgets spent on 'defence and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience'. The Telegraph recently reported that Sir Keir is looking to broaden the scope of national security in Britain to help meet that target. Essentially this means things like rural broadband, useful for communications if Britain is one day attacked, or runway expansions, handy for warplanes, can be counted towards the 1.5 per cent goal. Spain is hatching similar plans, suggesting it will allocate money already spent on past Nato challenges, like migration and climate change. Diplomatic sources within Nato have said ministries across the alliance dealing with infrastructure projects will be licking their lips at the prospect of funds being redirected their ways to help with the targets. The prevailing view is that numbers and not battle plans will be the only way to woo Mr Trump enough to prevent him from repeating the ruckus of 2018. Olga Olike, of the Crisis Group, said: 'The hard part isn't agreeing to a percentage of GDP. The hard part will be defining, and then implementing, strategies that credibly deter Russia and assure allies, regardless of what the US does.' Lessons learnt The main lesson taken from that chaotic summit in Brussels was that the best way of handling the US president is to acknowledge, appease and ultimately praise him. Officials supporting Mr Rutte will have produced a mass of data to back up his claims that Europe and Canada are already spending more because of Mr Trump. It took Mr Trump less than two minutes to use a figure of $33 billion in extra defence spending that was handed to him hours earlier at the past summit: 'I let them know that I was extremely unhappy with what was happening, and they have substantially upped their commitment,' he told a post-summit news conference. 'And now we're very happy and have a very, very powerful, very, very strong Nato, much stronger than it was two days ago.' While he is not scheduled to give a press conference, officials will be looking to arm him with enough positive ammunition should he change his mind, as was the case in 2018. This time, those numbers will be much greater. Since 2018, Nato member states, excluding the US, have pledged around $500 billion of extra defence spending - more than 55 per cent since Mr Trump's intervention in Brussels. And then there is that spending commitment of 5 per cent, a number conflated entirely to meet demands set by the US President.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
NATO leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions
U.S. President Donald Trump and his NATO counterparts are due to gather Tuesday for a summit that could unite the world's biggest security organization around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies. Just a week ago, things had seemed rosy. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defense as the United States does for the first time. Then Spain rejected the new NATO target for each country to spend 5% of its gross domestic product on defense needs, calling it 'unreasonable.' Trump also insists on that figure. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members. The following day, Trump said the U.S. should not have to respect the goal. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. Trump lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's government, saying: 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain's been a very low payer." He also criticized Canada as 'a low payer.' Spain was the lowest spender in the alliance last year, directing less than 2% of its GDP on defense expenditure, while Canada was spending 1.45%, according to NATO figures. Then Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the U.S.-led war on Iraq deeply divided NATO, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition. European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to steal the limelight. A short summit, decades of mutual security The two-day summit in The Hague involves an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording. Indeed, much about this NATO summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years. Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong U.S. presence on the continent. Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not. NATO's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia. NATO's collective security guarantee — Article 5 of the treaty — underpins its credibility. It's a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the U.S. intends to remain a member of the alliance. A civilian runs NATO, but the U.S. and its military hold power The United States is NATO's most powerful member. It spends much more on defense than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump. The U.S. nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries. NATO's day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister. As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other 'NACs' at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs NATO headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members. NATO's military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top U.S. officer. Ukraine's role at the summit is unclear With Trump demanding greater defense spending, it's unclear what role Ukraine will play at the summit. Zelenskyy has been invited, but it's unclear whether he will have a seat at NATO's table, although he may take part in Tuesday's dinner. Russia's war in Ukraine usually dominates such meetings. More broadly, NATO itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only non-lethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armor, and equipment to counter drones or mines. But individually, members do send arms. European allies provided 60% of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024. NATO coordinates those weapons deliveries via a hub on the Polish border and helps organize training for Ukrainian troops. NATO's troop plans A key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from attacking in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined NATO recently because of this concern. Under NATO's new military plans, 300,000 military personnel would be deployed within 30 days to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace. But experts doubt whether the allies could muster the troop numbers. It's not just about troop and equipment numbers. An adversary would be less likely to challenge NATO if it thought the allies would use the forces it controls. Trump's threats against U.S. allies — including imposing tariffs on them — has weakened that deterrence. The U.S. is carrying the biggest military burden Due to high U.S. defense spending over many years, the American armed forces have more personnel and superior weapons but also significant transportation and logistics assets. Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, NATO members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the NATO allies agreed to make 2% of GDP the minimum spending level. Last year, 22 countries were expected to hit that target, up from only three a decade ago. In The Hague, the allies were expected to up the ante to 3.5%, plus a further 1.5% for things like improving roads, bridges, ports and airfields or preparing societies to deal with future conflicts. Whether they will now remains an open question.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Scottish Labour MSPs missing more Holyrood votes than Tories and SNP
In recent weeks, the number of Labour MSPs failing to vote on motions in the Scottish Parliament has increased, leading to concerns that their absence could be "changing the result of the votes". Last Wednesday for example – the most recent day of voting at the time of writing – 39% of Labour MSPs (nine members) did not vote in the chamber, compared with 6.7% of Tory MSPs (two members) and 1.6% of SNP (one member). The National analysed all the main votes which have taken place so far in June, excluding amendments, and found that among the three main parties, Labour consistently had the highest percentage of absent MSPs, with the Tories following not far behind, while the SNP had the highest turnout. READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action Between June 1 and 19, an average of 20.1% of Labour MSPs failed to vote in motions, compared to 14% Tory and 6.6% SNP. Of the 10 votes that took place in that time, there were only four instances where turnout for both Labour and the Tories was higher than 90%. Meanwhile, the SNP turnout was above 90% in all of these votes. Scottish Labour had a higher turnout when it came to their own motions, such as their Planning motion on June 11, which was missed by one MSP, and their motion on Scotland's medical and nursing workforce crisis also on June 11, which all Labour MSPs voted on. More Labour MSPs tended to turn up when it came to voting on bills. At the Scottish Languages Bill debate on June 17, 17.4% of Labour MSPs did not vote, compared with 20% Tory and 8.2% SNP. And at the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill on June 10, 8.7% of Labour MSPs were absent, while the Tories had double, at 16.67%, and the SNP had 6.6%. But when these figures are compared with the start of the year, it shows a significant drop in attendance from Labour MSPs. READ MORE: Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood election The National found that in January, an average of 7.9% of Labour MSPs failed to vote, compared with 9.1% Tory and 6.6% SNP. And in February, the average number of MSPs missing votes stood at 15% Labour, 10.1% Tory and 6.2% SNP. When looking at the smaller parties, the Greens and LibDems – which have seven and five MSPs respectively – were much more likely to show up to votes. In fact, since the beginning of this year, the Scottish Greens have had a full turnout at 86.9% of votes (53 out of 61 votes), while the LibDems had 65.6% (40 votes). In the instances where full turnout was not recorded, this was down to a maximum of two MSPs not voting. READ MORE: Scottish civil service reaches 'record' size, figures show There is one Alba MSP (Ash Regan) and one Independent MSP (John Mason), who turned up to 75.4% (46 votes) and 100% of votes respectively. For parties with higher numbers of MSPs, it is more difficult to achieve a full turnout. The SNP, which have 60 MSPs, recorded a full turnout at just two votes (3.3%) – the Assisted Dying Bill on May 13 and an SNP motion on Scotland's Hydrogen Future on May 1. The only instance where every single Tory MSP (of which there are 30) took part in a vote was for the Assisted Dying Bill (1.6% of the total number of votes), while Labour (which have 23 MSPs) saw a full turnout at four votes (6.6%) – but three of those were motions submitted by Labour, while the fourth was for the Assisted Dying Bill. While it is expected that MSPs will not be able to make every single vote, such as due to illness or maternity leave, there are proxy voting arrangements in place which mean that the absence would not affect the overall result of a vote. Commenting on the figures, Greens MSP Ross Greer – who has voted in every motion analysed by The National – said that "if Labour MSPs don't want to do the jobs they were elected to, they should resign". He added that the proxy voting arrangements mean "there is no excuse for almost half of the Labour group casting no vote at all" in some cases. Ross Greer MSP"That is bad enough on ordinary motions, but it is totally unacceptable when we are deciding on the laws of this country," he said. Greer added that "it is a privilege to serve Scotland in Parliament", and that turning up to vote is "the bare minimum" that voters expect of those they elect. READ MORE: SNP the only pro-indy party not to sign pledge condemning Gaza genocide He continued: "This isn't a one off. The attendance of Labour and Tory MSPs has been shocking for years. "It has absolutely changed the result of votes and therefore meant that Scotland's laws are different than they otherwise would have been if everyone elected by the public had actually turned up to do their job." Commenting, SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson said: "The fact Labour and Tory MSPs are increasingly failing to turn up to Parliament shows that Scotland is always an afterthought for the unionist parties. "SNP MSPs have the best attendance rate of any party – we are in Parliament every day, standing up for our constituents – while Labour and the Tories are nowhere to be seen when it matters most." Scottish Labour did not respond when approached for comment.
