nu
SPECTATOR The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL Telephone: 0171-405 1706; Fax 0171-242 0603
PRIVATISING WAR
The salt-stained costume drama Horn- blower returned to our screens for a second sailing this week. Set in the weather-beaten world of the Napoleonic navy, it recounts the tales of derring-do on the high seas per- formed by C.S. Forester's fictional hero. The poor showing of the first episode prompted some to say that such historical material could not command mass appeal today. Hornblower, however, has a direct contem- porary relevance which the producers have failed to exploit. The Napoleonic navy was driven by prize money, as captains and crew claimed a share of all floating prizes taken. This was a relic of the privateering days of Francis Drake, when Elizabeth I and other monarchs contracted out the defence of the realm and the exploration of new lands to commercial venturers.
Now, after a period in which the state relied on a wholly nationalised army, Britain is once again looking at the advan- tages of privatising war. This week, Sir John Kerr, head of the diplomatic service, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the government was 'actively exploring' new guidelines on its relationship with mer- cenary companies, including the possibility of repealing the 1870 statute which made it an offence for Britons to be recruited by foreign-based armies. Sir John also admit- ted that Foreign Office officials had on sev- eral occasions worked with Lieutenant Colonel Tim Spicer, a director of Sandline, the private security firm involved in the Sierra Leone affair earlier this year. This is not surprising. At this year's anniversary of the Armistice, many won- dered whether the present generation of Young Britons would be prepared to make a similar sacrifice, or whether the nation as a whole would tolerate the death of their Tris (and daughters) for any other purpose than directly defending British territory. We have become a debellicised nation. Our leaders recognise this change. Tony Blair, like Bill Clinton, feels strongly about the behaviour of dictators in Iraq and the Balkans. Neither is prepared, however, to commit British or American ground troops to a war in either area. Instead, they rely on sanctions, surgical bomb strikes and encouraging local opponents of the regimes of which they disapprove. In Iraq, a logical next step would be to provide the Kurdish rebels with practical help, in the form of mercenaries, as well as money. This would permit our politicians to pursue their security policy for the region without putting at risk the lives of Western soldiers who, because of the nature of their job, could not refuse the assignment. West- erners might die, but the politicians could argue to themselves, and their electorates, that the deceased had personally chosen to take the risk.
The return of the mercenary has one negative outcome. It absolves our leaders from much of the moral responsibility for their decisions, and allows press and public to call for military action without worrying about 'our boys' in the army being put at risk. Despite this disadvantage, however, the contracting out of military action by sovereign governments deserves a cautious welcome. The security threats facing West- ern nations in the post-Cold War era are more complicated than before. In many cases, sending in a national army may mean using a cruise missile to crack a nut. Send- ing the British army into battle, moreover, requires an absolute moral certainty than there is no other option. Such certainties are hard to come by today. Using merce- naries, who have become far more profes- sional and reliable in recent years, would allow Western nations to pursue legitimate national interests by military means in an ever more complex world. Perhaps this was what Robin Cook meant by an ethical for- eign policy.
Stability is sexy,' declared the Prime Minister at the Lord Mayor's Banquet this week. He was referring to the nation's econ- omy rather than the amorous lives of its citi- zens, but we wonder what Freud would have made of this remark, nonetheless.
Stability is rarely the word that springs to mind when one thinks of matters erotic, at least of the old-fashioned kind. Blips, yes, booms, yes, even crashes — what goes up has to come down — but not stability, which surely spells doom for any passionate love affair. The use of the word says more about Mr Blair's personal character and outlook than most of the soundbites he has so far uttered for our enlightenment.
From it we deduce that the Prime Minis- ter has never surrendered himself up fully to the whirlwind of love; to the exquisite agony of sitting by the telephone waiting for calls which do not come; to the cession and turmoil of physical passion. No, Mr Blair, like his party, affects to be new. In his case, he affects to be a New Man.
Mr Blair is, or at least wishes to project the impression of being, the sort of New Man who sees a woman as his partner and equal; who loves her mind, not her body. So, the first time Mr Blair publicly says something is sexy, it is not his wife but the economy. It is final proof that our Prime Minister has a safe pair of hands.
Previous page
