 |
| Benyamin Netanyahu and Emmanuel Macron are under huge pressure (Image: The Times of Israel) |
Political leaders are often told to be bold and show authority. The moment they do - regardless of whether they're right or wrong, which I'll analyse three recent decisions here - they're doomed. As a result of these, we're talking about possible power shifts with dramatic consequences for the wider world. But whatever the possible outcomes, both the UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, and opposition leader, Sir Keir Starmer, should make their views known. If they want to appear as the big cheeses from beyond the Isles, both need to act bravely.
I'll start with France, because tensions between workers and Emmanuel Macron's government are escalating like there's no tomorrow. Reportedly millions have taken to the streets, calling out against pension reforms enforced by the country's leading party, which has minority control. The main issue people have is the decision to increase the pension age from 62 to 64 years, and for waste collectors, their retirement plans are delayed by two years too. Their walkouts have been the most eye-catching, with images of rubbish littering Paris and other major French cities a sight to behold. These strikes turned riotous the moment Macron's proposals turned policy, controversially without Parliament's approval. It's gotten so bad, King Charles's upcoming visit across the Channel has had to be postponed until the situation eases.
Of course, the situation will only calm when the millions of protesters get what they want, to retire at 62, or 57 for waste collectors. Forcing this law through the door has put Macron in an impossible position. All he needed, presuming that no one in his party would have rebelled, was just a handful of more elected parliamentarians to agree. He certainly won't get that now if he was to go back to the drawing board. It's either that he completely backs down, which will prove embarrassing for him, or stand firm and expect a sequel to Les Misérables. I argued a number of years ago how France will miss Francois Hollande, the sentiment I feel is aging rather well.
When I heard the news of the French's reaction to these reforms, I did (and still do) think it was very dramatic. I won't be able to retire until I'm 68, and I fully expect the number to increase as years go on. I expect to collect my pension by 70, and if that were to be a reality, I wouldn't complain. We're an aging population for a reason - we're generally living longer; average life expectancies are expected to rise even more by 2030. And despite advancements of technology and fears of artificial intelligence reliance, humans remain key to drive productivity and do good for the planet.
My personal views on this count for absolutely nothing. The fact that the UK's monarch had to compromise for this major inconvenience, you'd think Sunak be up in arms and urge Macron to do something to ease tensions. After all, both signed a significant agreement on how to best handle 'migrant boats' leaving France for British shores. Both were rather pleased with themselves a few short weeks ago, but with French workers collectively angered today, it'll no doubt impact what they negotiated. They may have discussed the situation in private, but Sunak can't afford to keep publicly silent about the affairs of their neighbours, which isn't showing signs of calming down anytime soon.
Sticking with Sunak, his buoyance has continued, as he recently rolled the red carpet for Israel's Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu. His country's voters have had a conflicting relationship with their politicians which has translated to its Parliament having forced five elections in the past four years, every single one of which resulting in different outcomes. Netanyahu was elected as the nation's leader for his third time in December 2022.
But his premiership is under severe threat, with Israelis showing their dissatisfaction towards a once admired leader (their views, most certainly not mine). He appeared to enforce justice reforms that seemingly would have given him tighter grips of power. After hostility hit Netanyahu's doorstep, and a day of strikes, he succumbed to pressure by delaying this decision. When you interpret his initial thought process, it's almost laughable - he prides himself to claim Iran and China as among his/Israel's enemies, but what he tried to do, mirrored their leaders. The fact that Sunak welcomed him with open arms shows who's side he's on - certainly not the people of Israel.
I'm (almost) surprised that Starmer, as former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service in his past life, someone who advocates legal fairness, isn't taking a public stance. He's an opposition leader, he can afford to be critical of other countries and, in doing so, apply some of Labour's five missions, which at this very moment lack any real meaning. These 'missions' will need to consider foreign affairs as well as domestic. Instead, Starmer says that despite what Netanyahu and his 'far right ministers' are doing to his people, he is determined that Israel and the UK remain friends. By all means, be friends; that's important. But when there's something that needs calling out, do so. Friends can have public disagreements, Mr Starmer.
I feel that he may be staying silent because by being critical, he fears finding himself in a trap that his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, fell in, and be accused of anti-Semitism. Of course, Israeli government's activities and the welfare of the Jewish community must never be linked, unless policies are specifically so. In fact, more than a quarter of Israelis aren't Jewish and some claim in reality, the minority of people in the Middle Eastern nation actually follow the faith. It's them who need protecting, not the government who represent them in this way.
One thing I had read was that Sunak and Netanyahu have plenty of shared values, including their general opposition to Iran. Netanyahu is known for his hatred towards the country and has often warned fellow world leaders of the threat the Ayatollahs' nuclear ambitions. This is being closely monitored by foreign governments who are still hopeful of reviving a deal which aims to limit Iran's power to build weapons. Netanyahu is predictably against any deal, and this sentiment is shared by some anti-Iranian regime campaign groups who call for change in power.
The future of Iran is something else that the UK government continues to stay silent about. Protests are growing on British soil, urging for a range of actions, including listing the revolutionary guard (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation (not so possible unless there was concrete evidence that it does something that has a direct impact on Britain) and proactively call out the regime for the way it's treating people they represent. Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran's last Shah, has been rather prolific in this, co-forming a 'pro-democratic' group with the aim of collapsing the current system. A handful of Westminster backbenchers are keen to support him, but nothing beyond that, which may be as well. I'm, personally, pretty nervous about his involvement and his motives are questionable at best.
I can understand the hesitation from the UK government on this, which will probably annoy campaigners. It's a challenge to know the true extent of people in Iran's desire for change, unless the regime announced a referendum to confirm this - I've better chance of marrying Rita Ora than this happening.
In addition, unlike pally France and Israel, Westminster's relationship with Iran is frail at best, and it's at a place where either are one major wrong foot away from political disarray. And the Ayatollahs anarchic actions could have serious consequences. They are on thin ice, and they know it. They want to think differently than the Shah by isolating themselves from the western nations, but know in practice, it would never work. In some respects, Khamenei and the Shah's regimes are more similar than they perhaps dare to believe. The consequences of the sanctions speak for this. However, equally, these sanctions are crippling Iranian people, and that could fall flat for foreign governments who want to help bring change. It's vital Sunak treads carefully, yet, when he has the urge to speak out, like US President Joe Biden does, he can do it without it being a diplomatic nightmare.
Ultimately, what Britain says, matters. Sunak should take this as a compliment. As a public relations professional, I'd normally suggest Britain to stay on the fence. But we're living in increasingly volatile times. And the UK isn't tied to the European Union anymore and can come up with stances that shows where they fit on the world stage. It's healthy to express opinions, it would help campaigners on their front yard, know where they stand. It's their votes these leaders should be seeking, not the complete satisfaction of governments. Relationships are best when they're publicly constructive. Let's stick to that principle. Sunak is doing it with Ukraine, without any hesitation, please do it with others.
Comments
Post a Comment