There are three reasons why Donald Trump was right to launch a cruise missile strike against the Syrian Air Force facilities responsible for the chemical weapons attack last week on a town in northern Syria.
First, the use of such weapons, in this case against civilians including children, is an abhorrent crime that is internationally outlawed and was generally avoided even in the Second World War. There has to be a response to such a crime. In August 2013, Ed Miliband’s Labour Party and some rebel Conservatives prevented any retaliation, which has only led to further atrocities.
Second, Trump acted quickly, which is crucial to making a clear connection between the crime and the response. Former US President Barack Obama initially intended to do this four years ago, but then became bogged down in the decision-making, accepting instead a Russian plan to disarm Syrian President Bashar Al Assad of chemical agents — a plan we can now see was not fully carried out.
Third, the US action showed that the new administration is not afraid to confront Russia, in a way that is forceful but not irresponsible. The warning given was correctly judged, allowing time to avert casualties among Russian personnel but still doing serious damage.
The real test will be whether the missile strike can be followed up with a coherent approach to handling Moscow and to ending the war in Syria. Where Obama set a red line and then failed to enforce it, Trump has done the opposite — enforced a red line he hadn’t enunciated. But it is a far cry from Trump’s campaign rhetoric about working with Putin and from recent US statements about concentrating exclusively on defeating Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).
It has taken only 80 days for the sad truth to become apparent to the new president and much of his team: however much they might hope for better relations, Russia under Putin is not a reliable partner.
A succession of leaders in Washington and London have made the effort to work with Moscow, only to be let down by unacceptable behaviour or misled at crucial moments.
Hillary Clinton’s attempted “reset” ended in disillusionment. Each British government over the last decade has painstakingly pushed the boulder of UK-Russia relations up the hill only to see it rolled back down again.
For the last Labour government, links with Russia were ruined by the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London with highly radioactive polonium, a flagrant and total breach of all accepted standards of law and diplomacy. On top of that, Russian troops marched into part of Georgia, essentially to prevent its emergence as a successful democratic country.
In the Cameron government we set out again to improve matters. I visited Moscow three times as foreign secretary, spending a good deal of time with the veteran foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in the interests of better relations.
David Cameron visited the Kremlin and spent long hours on the phone with Putin. We tried to open up more trade and consult regularly. Yet still each foreign crisis opened up new differences.
After a long negotiation of a plan to resolve the Syrian war in 2012, we and the Americans pushed the opposition there into agreeing to share power with parts of the Al Assad regime, but Russia did not fulfil its side of the deal by pressing Al Assad to play his own part in bringing peace. By early 2014, Russia was invading Crimea and destabilising eastern Ukraine.
Now, in the third successive British Cabinet, the planned visit to Moscow of Boris Johnson has suffered the same fate — a faithful attempt to improve matters has fallen victim to Russian behaviour elsewhere in the world that is beyond the pale, in this case acquiescence or perhaps complicity in the use of chemical weapons.
Russian resentment
Johnson should not worry about the abuse hurled at him by Russia for cancelling his visit. Trying to deride the UK as a puppet of Washington is a sign of Russian resentment at the close alliance of the UK and the US, and a defensive reaction from a regime that wants to change the subject from the argument about the atrocities committed in Syria.
We have now seen enough to know for sure that there is no strategy we haven’t tried for turning Russia into a willing and reliable partner on global issues, unless we are prepared to accept annexations, murders and the use of banned weapons without demur.
It is important to see Russia for what it is: a country with deep social and economic problems and in long term decline, but run according to the guidebook of a Cold War intelligence service to preserve the political and financial position of privileged leaders at any cost.
An increasing number of Russians know this, which is why tens of thousands of young people turned out at considerable risk across the country two weeks ago to protest against corruption. There is no excuse for the rest of the world not to know it as well. That does not mean we want conflict with Putin, or that there aren’t many issues where we must still try to co-operate with him — defeating terrorism being one.
But we should always be clear that generous gestures will not be reciprocated, real trust will be impossible and that whenever he is given an inch he will take several yards. All of this means firmness, vigilance and western unity should be the watchwords of conducting Russia policy.
When Rex Tillerson arrives in Moscow this week he should say the choice is Russia’s: if it fails to prevent outrages such as last week’s the US will react; if it interferes in democratic elections abroad it will be exposed without gaining the influence it seeks; if it invades neighbouring countries the sanctions on it will tighten.
The US cannot impose its own peace settlement on Syria. But it can make life very difficult for Al Assad and his backers if it chooses to do so. It remains to be seen if the abrupt change of approach by Trump means some of his mistaken campaign rhetoric is now being overturned. If it does, he will have many disappointed supporters. But the rest of us will say welcome to the unpleasant reality of diplomacy and power, and well done for showing backbone to a country whose leadership understands little else.
— The Telegraph Group Limited, London 2017
William Hague is a former British foreign secretary and a former leader of the Conservative Party.
