Cameron can influence events in Ukraine

The most important foreign diplomacy is conducted quietly and slowly

Last updated:
3 MIN READ
Cameron can influence events in Ukraine

If diplomacy is an iceberg, summitry is its tip: The moment when heads of government swoop in to push their diplomats over the finishing line, making the final adjustment to negotiating positions that may be months or years in the making, and taking international acclaim for peacemaking. So it is natural to feel sorry for British Prime Minister David Cameron, apparently sitting out Europe’s most serious crisis in decades as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande shuttle between Kiev, Moscow and Munich. General Sir Richard Shirreff, Nato’s second-most senior military officer until last March, has been scornful of this absence, describing Cameron as “a bit player” and a “foreign policy irrelevance”. But Shirreff is being unfair.

First, France and Germany have considerably more leverage in these talks than Britain. Whereas Cameron played most of Britain’s cards long ago, pressing especially hard for last year’s tough sanctions, Hollande and Merkel have been more cautious. This is in part because of their greater economic interdependence with Russia, both a vulnerability and a source of leverage. Merkel’s is the most powerful voice in the European Union (EU), with more sway than anyone’s over the course of future sanctions. Greece’s dramatic political shift is also a factor.

As Athens leans towards Moscow, Merkel’s policies towards Greece acquire an increasingly important security dimension. To put it another way, Putin has both more to lose and more to gain from Germany and France than he does from Britain. The British Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, was therefore right to call Merkel one of the West’s best weapons against Russian aggression.

Nevertheless, Hammond went to Munich. He has met both German and American ministers there and is almost certainly in the loop. The notion that only the prime minister’s presence would adequately represent Britain is ridiculous and reflects an implicit but all-too-common disdain towards the office of foreign secretary. It also suggests an unwillingness to accept the reality that Britain’s European allies bring to bear different strengths in different places.

Britain agreed to the so-called Normandy format — the four-power discussions involving Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia — last summer. This was then, and remains today, a sensible division of labour. Second, French and German shuttle diplomacy is only one part of a complex equation, with a major offstage role being played by the US. Over the last week, US officials have been sending increasingly loud hints that they may provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry. That injected urgency into the Franco-German initiative.

American weapons will not tip the balance, but they will force Russia to inject more forces and to incur greater costs, to keep up the separatists’ momentum. Last Saturday, Merkel, playing the good cop, reiterated her opposition to such arms transfers. This is being portrayed as a US-German “rift”, and that may be true. But it also puts pressure on Vladimir Putin to implement the ceasefire terms he agreed — and promptly ignored — last September in Minsk.

What can Britain meaningfully add to this strategy beyond keeping open the option, as Hammond has done, to send Britain’s own arms to Kiev? If it comes to that, Britain will almost certainly have to follow the American lead.

Given that the details of the continuing diplomacy are unknown, it is impossible to judge whether Merkel and Hollande are driving a sufficiently hard bargain. Reports suggest that the two leaders proposed a new ceasefire that recognised the separatists’ military advances in the months since Minsk. Kiev will not agree to this unless it is coupled with credible monitoring arrangements. But Russia will probably balk at measures that substantially restrict its ability to turn the temperature back up in the future. It is ultimately up to Moscow to decide whether a deal will be done and it is for Washington to decide how high a price Putin will pay for recalcitrance. In this sense, Shirreff is right that Britain is a “bit player”. Punching above one’s weight is a slogan, not a strategy.

But Franco-German leadership is not the same thing as British irrelevance. The most important diplomacy is conducted quietly and slowly. Enforcing the sanctions regime, building up Nato’s rapid reaction forces and bridging European and American policies are unsexy, but crucial tasks. These create the context in which Putin will decide his next steps. Britain can play an important role in each one, applying pressure and supporting diplomacy, without Cameron having to rack up air miles in some pointless pursuit of prominence.

— Guardian News & Media Ltd

Shashank Joshi is a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute.

Sign up for the Daily Briefing

Get the latest news and updates straight to your inbox

Up Next