9th October 2017
Rt Hon Theresa May
10 Downing Street
Westminster
London
SW1A 2AA
Dear Prime Minister,
Re: A new narrative
I write to you rather than the Foreign Secretary as it is your position that has the ultimate responsibility for the policy and decisions of the UK government and this matter asks you to take an active role in the matter of Foreign Policy.
As a keen advocate of Brexit, I was pleased to see that the UK governments plan is to be a leading advocate for free trade across the world. Some of us, however, were hoping for more than that; namely that we would combine an independent global trading nation together with a truly independent Foreign Policy.
Our voice has been missing from world affairs and when it has spoken, it no longer has the reputation it once did. It is unfortunate that the United Nations which was once the great hope of mankind has failed in its objectives due to manipulation, its institutional cover-ups, corruption and the undemocratic politics of its security council.
It is no surprise therefore that NATO has been forced to step up to bring some order with the US acting as the world’s policeman; however this has also led to what many to consider to be the pursuit of an “American Empire”.
Given our special relationship with the US, it is not surprising that the UK has given its support to many of the worldwide initiatives, I for one advocated the “shoulder to shoulder” approach after the 9/11 attacks.
However, I am suggesting that matters have now gone too far. We are no longer considered an independent honest broker, but merely an appendage to US Foreign Policy.
For too many years, our position has become increasingly aligned with the US and EU and as a result our voice has been lost on the world stage. This has been a loss for the whole world and the whole world is all the poorer for it.
We must recognise too, that all forms of single domination will naturally lead to tyranny, so an international cooperation is the dialogue and narrative that we must begin to articulate and take the lead in.
What has led me to this conclusion is the increasingly worrying trend to demonise Russia as part of a clearly orchestrated agenda. Indeed, it was this rhetoric that led me to participate as an international witness in Crimea and I enclose a copy of my Witness Statement for you.
Recent examples of this demonisation and the clear lurch into propaganda are as follows:
RUSSIA IS OUR GREATEST ENEMY?
- Alexander Litvinenko:
With the death of Alexander Litvinenko, the UK produced a report by Sir Robert Owen which in January 2016 concluded: “Taking full account of all the evidence and analysis available to me, I find that the FSB operation to kill Mr. Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr. Patrushev and also by President Putin.”
Whilst the evidence against Mr. Lugovoy and Mr. Kovtun produced no positive evidence that they had ever acquired any Polonium 210, the circumstantial evidence does appear to point to their involvement in the death of Litvinenko.
Despite the claim that the source of the Polonium 210 was from Russia, evidence also showed that there are no fingerprint recognition in the source and further evidence told of a consignment of Polonium 210 containing many times the quantity that Mr. Litvinenko ingested, was sold not but from Russia in 2006 for US$20,000.
As Mr. Litvinenko (who appears to have been working for the British Government) was involved with Mr. Berezovsky and appears to have moved in some extremely murky waters, it is far from certain, let alone probable, that the FSB were involved. Nor is there any evidence that his death was ordered Mr. Patrushev and even less evidence that this was still further approved by President Putin.
In fact a highly plausible alternative would appear to be that Russian crime gangs, and in particular the Tambov/Malyshev groups based in St Petersburg were involved in this act. However the hearing was not an open one and The Russian Foreign Ministry complained that Britain was obstructing its Russian criminal investigation attempt to send prosecutors to London to interview more than 100 people, including Mr. Berezovsky.
Within the report, Professor Service suggested, moreover, that there were reasons going beyond academic or judicial rigour why the Inquiry ought to be careful to restrict its conclusions to matters that were provable on the evidence before it. He said this:
“But we have to be really cautious – and there’s another aspect of this that exercises me, and that’s that Russians want to see us fairly going through evidence in a scholarly environment or a judicial environment or an Inquiry like this in a fashion that they know doesn’t happen in their own country. So we must not sink at all below our conventional standards. We absolutely mustn’t, because some of what we do in relation to this Inquiry will get back to Moscow, and we must not give them the opportunity to say that we failed to respect our own standards because those are standards that are really worth keeping to.”
Not only did Sir Robert Owen not take that advice, he allowed his report to form the basis of propaganda.
- Ukraine:
Phillip Hammond in February 2015 was quoted as saying that: “We want the Russians to pay a price for their aggression in Ukraine”.
It is now clear that the US and EU interfered in the Ukraine Elections in order to prevent Ukraine & Russian cooperation and this was done via NGO’s in Ukraine.
Victoria Nuland the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasia affairs has stated that they were “active in change of government with an investment of $5billion”. It begs the question, how complicit has the UK Government been in these activities?
How ironic that Sen. John McCain is quoted as saying: “Russia is a bigger security threat than Islamic State, based on its willingness to challenge the democratic foundations of the U.S. by interfering in elections”.
It is clear that the Ukraine problem was nothing to do with Russia and that they have merely provided defensive aid to what has now become a civil war as Separatists fight Ukrainian forces in the Donbas region.
Russia has complied with all the terms of Minsk II Agreement, that they are able to, and any delay is entirely down to Ukraine. It is time therefore for the international community to do what it said it will do and lift the sanctions on Russia.
- Crimea:
Boris Johnson in March 2017 said: “We are adamant that Russia’s annexation of Crimea is illegal and we urge Russia to return it.” Crimea held a legitimate Referendum that was a demonstration of the people’s “Right of Self Determination” as enshrined in UN principles.
Further the Crimean referendum followed all international-law, the UN charter, and the precedent established by Kosovo’s NATO-prodded annexation from Serbia.
Russian soldiers did not intervene in the events connected with Referendum and the Proclamation of the Crimea Independence was witnessed by 150 international observers, with members of the parliaments of the countries of Western and Eastern Europe, and the European Parliament among them.
As I found in my report, the people of Crimea voluntarily voted to join the Russian Federation and the reasons for doing so are clear and obvious.
- Gas Attack in Syria:
Sir Michael Fallon in April 2017 said: “Russia is to blame for every civilian death in last week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria”.
As you will be aware there is no proof at the present time that Assad carried out the chemical attack, indeed an early report showed that the site at Khan Sheikhun was inconsistent with a bomb dropped on the area and more consistent with a ground explosion.
We then had the unedifying sight of UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft berating the Russian diplomat Vladimir Safronkov that the UK shares the US assessment that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for a sarin attack. All this with no evidence!
As you already know, the UN Security Council Resolution was worded so as to make the investigation only one sided and it therefore forced the Russians into a veto. This could easily have been resolved by including them in the drafting of the resolution.
Worse still, when did the British Government treat allegations as proof? When did the principle of innocent before proven guilty cease to apply?
- Russian Exercises
Michael Fallon September 2017 – “Russian exercises are designed to provoke us. Russia is being more aggressive and is testing us and testing us at every opportunity”.
Does that mean that US & UK exercises are designed to provoke Russia?
- War with Russia
Sir Michael Fallon in November 2016 said: “Britain would be able to fight a war against Russia within two years”.
I believe the absurdity of that statement speaks for itself, and sounds more like something Kim Jong-Un might say.
I would imagine it would be embarrassing to be caught out in one propaganda lie, but to be caught out in so many, proves the rule that being Machiavellian is flawed; your actions will become exposed in the end.
It is apparent that the US, through NATO and the EU has been expanding its bases through UN countries, despite its promises to Gorbachev and pursuing a neo conservative agenda which seems driven by arrogance and paranoia. It has recently been pointed out that there are more Communists in the British Labour Party than there is in Putin’s government.
There is no need to expand NATO against a nonexistent threat. We can build strength through bi lateral agreements and mutual assistance and security.
I would remind you that Russia is a democratic country with a liberal society, it might have developed an oligarch structure, but I suggest was essential to enable it to transition from Communism to Capitalism. That structure is past its sell by date and Russia has already recognised this, there are party’s that are seeking reform internally.
A NEW NARRATIVE:
Whilst there have been attempts to fix the problems of the UN, endeavors such as the “Clark-Sohn Proposal for World Law” may not come to pass in our lifetime and advocates for a UN Parliamentary Assembly possibly through direct representation of people, still lacks clarity of vision.
In the meantime, I am suggesting that with Brexit upon us, we have the opportunity to begin a new narrative for the UK.
We should make it clear that we have no plans for a return to Empire or plans for global domination of any kind, but one of international states working in co-operation with one another.
We should be adding our voice back into world affairs, one that is based on trade and co-operation, one that is demonstrably independent, one that can be considered an honest broker in world affairs, one that maintains its integrity, one that seeks peaceful co existence.
Our “special” relationship with the US is precisely that; and should not change, but we must also recognise that in a friendship we are able to point out when our friend is wrong. We can try to dissuade our friend, but not feel obligated to follow them down the same path. Such a friendship should also not preclude us from making other friends, even if they disapprove.
Every nation has the right to compete on the global stage. Our hope should be to have a partnership with Russia that recognises every nation’s pursuit of their self-interest within the framework of the rules-based international order.
A world government whether it be in federalist or unitary form is not the narrative of the future, as it inevitably leads to tyranny.
It is our responsibility to humanity to propose a new global architecture, a new paradigm for international relations, one that includes diversity of governance, perhaps even a new model of civilisation.
I would point out that during the Roman Empire; the Romans were not cultural imperialists.
Russia has a different model to ours, it can be difficult to understand, perhaps obscured by the difference in language, and a history of mistrust, but it has the right to a long term equitable existence and with diversity high on our agenda, we should encourage separate models in the world to co-exist in a state centric world.
NEXT STEPS:
The path I am suggesting is not an easy one; it will take courage and perseverance to pursue, and will be tested many times, even when it is eventually in place; still, we should begin it because it is the right thing to do.
I would suggest the following:
- Let our American friends know that we will be changing our Foreign Policy, that it maintains our special relationship, but allows us to forge new friendships. That where we agree, we will still stand shoulder to shoulder, but where we do not, we may withdraw or even make our opposition public.
- Fully develop our new narrative for our future Foreign Policy and make it public.
- With Brexit we will need to develop our own position on sanctions once we leave the EU. We have the opportunity to suspend or remove them altogether and begin to open a new dialogue with the Russians, perhaps even a lucrative trade deal.
- Begin to repair the damage done between Russia and the UK and to begin once again to build trust between our two countries. To that end, I have ideas on how to cement our relationship and honour our mutual history, but that will depend on the success of the steps above.
There are consequences to the games you play, on the lives of ordinary people. The people of Russia are our friends and furthermore, they have proved that in two World Wars. We have a debt to the Russians that we can never repay, and the lack of appreciation and current propaganda continues to cause a stain on our historical relationship.
Lest we forget.
It will take time to regain the respect we once had in the world, so I urge you to begin it now.
“I would rather go to any extreme than suffer anything that is unworthy of my reputation, or of that of my crown.”
Elizabeth I
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Sussman
