Russia and Ukraine, Britain and Ireland

 

 

I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of the similarities between and Britain’s relations with Ireland and Russia’s with Ukraine.  The histories of  the two pairs have  obvious similarities.

The British, or perhaps more precisely, the English, have over the centuries tended to regard the Irish as part of “Us”  whilst most if not all of the Irish think of themselves as different.  From the 12^th Century onwards English kings have claimed to be “Lords,” then Kings of Ireland and our rulers have made successive but unsuccessful attempts, stretching through the Earl of Essex, Oliver Cromwell, William of Orange, and the Black and Tans” to "sort out" Ireland, to the present compromise whereby the bulk of Ireland is allowed to be different, but the top right-hand corner remains part of “Us”( though often still different when it suits them with regard to grammar schools, gay marriage , abortion, proportional representation, Single Market membership  and maybe other quirks.)

Ukraine and Russia both claim common ancestorship with the Slavic settlers  of the 11^th century, and have been in a close relationship since the days of Catherine the Great,  who annexed he Crimea in the 18^th Century. The whole county was part of the Russian Empire (aka the Soviet Union) and  Russian is the dominant language in both the Crimea and Donbas, and a strong second in several other areas.  In these, as in Northern Ireland, a significant chunk and possible a majority of the populations would be quite happy to become (or, in the case of the Crimea, remain) part of Russia.

White smoke from the meeting of Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy during the funeral of Pope Francis indicates that an agreement to end the present fighting  may be in the offing, and involve the ceding of some Ukrainian territory to Russia.  The speculation  might, yet again, be one of Trumps wishful thoughts, but it might be true. 

If true , it will be reported as  a sell-out  and a betrayal of the Ukrainian soldiers and citizens who have given their lives in the defence of their country, and an unacceptable capitulation by the West to Putin’s  bullying.

It may be that dedicated Irish Republicans feel similarly betrayed by the retention of Northern Ireland as part of the UK.  But they know that this is not the end of the story.  By fair means (waiting patiently for demographics to  bring the Nationalists into a majority over the Unionists in Northern Ireland) or by foul means (continued terrorist/guerrilla activity) there will probably eventually be  a United Ireland.

A settlement which patriotic nationalist in Ukraine will regard as “temporary” would probably have a similar future.  Either demography, guerrilla warfare or political agitation will eventually lead to  unification or a settlement acceptable to all sides.

The alternative is to continue a war of attrition in which young Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, and hapless citizens , all equally precious to  God in the eyes of the late Francis and sincere members of other religions, continue to be sacrificed,  support from other European countries to fill the gap left by the US  will eventually peter out, and a similar “compromise “ is eventually reached several thousands of deaths and mutilations later.

Trump's tariffs (and other wars).

 

As a classic attention seeker President Trump must have enjoyed his day in the sun yesterday, with the eyes of  concerned citizens in almost every country in the world on him.  The Guardian’s leader predicted that ”No British retaliation [would] mean GDP 0.4%  lower this year and 0.6% next.” (2^nd April.)  By my calculations that means 40p less in every prospective £100 earned, then 60p.  The bombarded in Gaza, front-line soldiers  and citizens of Ukraine,  and millions starving in Sudan and South Sudan, not to mention about 200 other “hot” wars, would presumably give their ears for that level of inconvenience.

Be that as it may, if this is the start of the imposition retaliatory tariffs  world prosperity is at the beginning of a downward spiral similar to that of the 1930s, when one major economy after anther tried to “export its unemployment” by imposing “tit for tat” tariffs.

President Trump’s reasoning is wrong on at least two counts. First, the “rust belt” will not be rebuilt and his “left behind” supporters will not get their old jobs back.  It seems ludicrous to have to remind one of the world’s most dynamic economies that the modern world economy is dynamic and countries prosper when they produce what the world is going to want tomorrow rather than what we used to want yesterday.  (Something to which Britain has had and still has difficulty in adapting to.)

Secondly, the idea that tariffs generate a “nice little earner” from foreigners paying to sell their  products  in your country, is highly misleading.  A tariff is a tax at least partly and often largely  paid by a country's  own consumers.  In the jargon, a tariff raises the price to the consumer and lowers the price received by the producer, the relative incidence being determined by the relative elasticities of supply and demand.  “A” level candidates in economics are taught to draw graphs to demonstrate this until it’s coming out of their ears.

A  friend of a former “Peace Corps” friend has just sent me a list of five conversation stoppers he suggests to throw in when stuck with MAGA relatives round the table.  No 2 is “I can’t wait for Trump’s Tariffs.  I’m sick of paying so little for everything.”

Oh, and one other thing: Trump regards countries which collect sales taxes  or VAT as discriminating against America, and believes this justifies even higher tariffs.   They don’t and it doesn’t.   These taxes are normally paid by all domestic producers so the playing field from that point of view is level.  The most marginal of GCSE candidates could have told him that.

The problem for our governments is how best to respond.  Some leaders are quite belligerent and advocate punishing America in kind.  The purpose is supposedly to  force America to back down.  But, as in the 1930s the likely result, with obstinate boneheads in charge, is to punish ourselves.

Perhaps a “softly softly” approach could be better.  Do nothing now.  Wait and see.  Maybe soon the American people will tire of paying higher prices for world products, realise they’ve been duped and, if they can’t turn Trump out, at least elect a congress that can put a stop to this cavalier nonsense. 

And in any case, Trump may very soon lose interest and move on to another fad.  If so, let’s hope it doesn’t involve nuclear weapons.