Wednesday, 26 October 2016
Up-to-the-minute perspectives on defence, security and peace
issues from and for policy makers and opinion leaders.

     |      View our Twitter page at     |     

The Forgotten Country: The British Protectorate of the Miskito Kingdom*


Joseph E. Fallon writes that prior to 1894 and the “Great Rapprochement”, which grew into the “Special Relationship” that defines contemporary British-American relations, Washington viewed London as “the enemy”. The objective of U.S. foreign policy throughout the Nineteenth Century was in the words of Thomas Jefferson “…the final expulsion of England from the American continent.” To that end, the U.S. declared war on the British Empire in 1812, and threatened war in 1839, 1844-1848, 1849-1850, 1852, 1854, 1856, 1859, and 1894.  Washington failed to expel the British from Canada, but succeeded in ejecting the British from much of Central America.  Washington achieved this by abolishing the British Protectorate of the Miskito Kingdom.


Since the fall of Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003, Iraq has been unstable. It will remain unstable for years to come irrespective of what happens in Mosul, believes Nehad Ismail.

The main source of instability is the sectarian struggle inside Iraq itself. The meddling of Iran in Iraqi affairs has made a bad situation much worse and the regional rivalry between Shi’a Iran on one side and the Sunni states of Saudi Arabia and Turkey contributed to Iraq’s instability. Unless the three powers agree to work together to resolve all their differences, Iraq will continue to be a victim.

After the Saudi-led airstrikes on Sanaa, Yemen's capital, on October 8, pressure on Western nations selling weapons to Saudi Arabia will be mounting. Recently, the United States Congress passed into law the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA) bill, aimed at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). These are two of the latest signs that the KSA is becoming a little more isolated and losing some crucial allies, writes Olivier Guitta on the next page.

On the next page we mark the passing of those who have served this country. Contributions from colleagues and families welcome.

"Where do we stand? We are not members of the European Defence Community, nor do we intend to be merged in a federal European system. We feel we have a special relationship to both...we are with them, but not of them".

Prime Minister Winston Churchill, 11 May 1953.

The defence implications of Brexit are enormous. It is now three months since the Brexit referendum which saw the British people vote 52% to 48% to quit the EU. Since then, and in the absence of firm leadership in London, a phoney war is being 'fought' into which all sorts of nonsense is being injected. However, the defence aspect of Brexit has been by and large AWOL, both in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. Speaking in Riga, Latvia last week the need for Europe's strongest military democracy to remain fully committed to the defence of Europe is as clear to me as ever. That commitment is in danger and here is why, explains Dr Julian Lindley-French.

The post-Cold War consensus appears to be breaking down. Trust in multi-lateral bodies to mediate international disputes is being replaced by assertive regional powers. Developments in Asia, the Middle East and Europe demonstrate the return of 'strong man' politics. The 'Brexit' vote and the possibility of a Trump presidency in the US are seen as evidence of 'nativism'. Internationalism seems to be in retreat. Such is the view of the London based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) at the launch of their annual Strategic Survey for 2016, which Nick Watts attended for Defence Viewpoints.

Across the world, international relations seem to be increasingly influenced by assertiveness; either from regional actors jostling for influence, or Russia seeking a renewal of 'respect'. International organisations such as ASEAN in Asia, the EU and NATO in Europe are all frustrated by an inability of powers to co-operate. The same appears to be the case with the US and its attempts to impose its will in foreign policy.

Churchill said that the truth needed a ‘bodyguard’ of lies. The propaganda campaign which was part of the effort by both sides during World War 2 has been resurrected for the modern era. During the Cold War Soviet propaganda was often clumsy, but a lot of it was very subtle. All that was required was to change the minds of the audience you are addressing. There were many in the West who felt that the Soviet regime was more sinned against than sinning.

The digital era of social media has added a whole new dimension to the meaning of ‘mass communications’. During World War 2 Goebbels understood the power of having a radio in every household; both to control the domestic audience, as well as influencing the minds of the enemy. Autocracies rely on uniformity of thought to sustain their legitimacy. In democracies, so the theory goes, pluralistic media outlets mean that Government cannot control what people think. The rise of social media, bloggers and smart phones has seen a decline in readership of mainstream ‘newspapers’; add to this a plethora of cable and satellite news channels and we are faced with a babel of choices.

A recent gathering of military and media figures took place at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London' including our correspondent Nick Watts, to consider the twin issues of War in the Information age and the role of Strategic Communications (StratCom). Politicians and commanders need to be aware of the changed media landscape when they are considering military operations. Communications has been seen as an add-on to campaign planning. The days when journalists could be corralled into briefings with a junior staff officer are long past. Apart from freelance journalists, photographers and bloggers in war zones, there is the chorus of social media. The advent of the mobile phone means that everybody is now a cameraman. The smart phone made the Arab spring possible, but it has also enabled Da’esh to promulgate its propaganda.

The Afghan elites in 2016 are characterised by magical thinking, of a kind all too drearily familiar to anyone who has travelled in the more hapless parts of the developing world, writes Anatol Lieven. For by far the greater part of them, nothing that has happened to Afghanistan is the fault of Afghans. The Taliban are entirely created and supported by Pakistan, the USA, or some bewildering combination of the two, and have no support among Afghans. The last elections were manipulated by the USA, and the near-paralysis of the resulting "national unity government" is due to a malign American plot to ruin Afghan democracy. Western complaints about corruption, misgovernment and drug dealing in the Afghan state are because since British colonial times, "the West has hated Afghanistan".

By the same token, the solution to Afghanistan's problems is also not the responsibility of the Afghans themselves. Read more below

Marking the passing of those who have served this country in its times of need. Contributions from colleagues and families welcome.

More Articles...

Latest from the Ministry of Defence

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Defence Viewpoints website. However, if you would like to, you can modify your browser so that it notifies you when cookies are sent to it or you can refuse cookies altogether. You can also delete cookies that have already been set. You may wish to visit which contains comprehensive information on how to do this on a wide variety of desktop browsers. Please note that you will lose some features and functionality on this website if you choose to disable cookies. For example, you may not be able to link into our Twitter feed, which gives up to the minute perspectives on defence and security matters.