THE world could scarcely be a more dangerous place right now. With every day that passes, the stakes over Russia’s war in Ukraine grow. Yesterday, it was Moscow’s decision to “weaponise” energy imports and make Poland and Bulgaria the first countries in the EU to have their Russian gas supplies cut off.
Meanwhile, earlier this week, European giant Germany bowed to pressure home and abroad to abandon its reluctance to supply heavy weapons to Ukraine and said it will deliver anti-aircraft tanks in support of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government in Kyiv.
Not to be outdone, the often hapless and tactless UK foreign secretary Liz Truss insisted that Britain and other Western powers should provide warplanes to Ukraine.
“We’re seeing the return of geopolitics,” Truss announced yesterday, perhaps not realising that it never really went away and clearly putting behind her the gaffe she made early during the war in Ukraine when she failed to know the difference between the Black and Baltic seas.
READ MORE: The National launches Leaders' Interviews ahead of local elections
Ever since Nato member states earlier this month agreed to supply new types of advanced weaponry to Ukraine as Russia prepared to begin its offensive in the east of the country, it’s hard to escape the feeling that the current escalation in the conflict is moving inexorably towards a full-scale confrontation between Russia and the West.
Just where the tipping point might be remains difficult to ascertain, just as the implications of where it could ultimately lead are terrifying, to say the least.
Even allowing for Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov’s penchant for uncompromising talk, I’m sure I’m not the only one who felt a little uneasy when he warned recently that the risk of nuclear war is now “considerable”, and a result of Western nations continuing to supply Ukrainian forces with weapons.
But hey, what are we supposed to do, sit back, and allow Russia to attack and intimidate at will? That was never an option before and certainly isn’t now having witnessed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s capacity for aggression and riding roughshod over the norms of international law.
If one thing stands out right now in all these tumultuous events surrounding us, it’s that there is a lesson here for every one of us. A lesson that basically boils down to the premise that what happens in other parts of the world impacts on all of us.
One need only think back to the days of the Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, 9/11 attacks in 2001, or the coronavirus pandemic and now the Russian invasion of Ukraine to understand that no person is an island.
Instead, we are all part of the main, impacted upon directly or indirectly by unfolding events often originating in seemingly far off places.
There is a lesson here too of how more vital it is than ever to have wider public awareness and understanding of the international issues that shape our lives. Be it conflict, security, health, trade, human rights or environmental issues, we are all inextricably connected.
It’s against this backdrop that last night I found myself, along with others from across Scotland and beyond, at the launch of the new – and may I say long overdue – Scottish Council on Global Affairs (SCGA).
Among those mustered at the Edinburgh Castle gathering were academics and researchers from the founding universities of Glasgow, St Andrews and Edinburgh as well as cross-party politicians who have all backed the SCGA in their respective manifestos.
So just what will the SCGA do and why its formation now? Well put simply its aim is to place Scotland’s considerable expertise at the disposal of public policy and promote independent, expert-informed debate and discussion of the most pressing international questions we face now.
Personally, I’m fully in agreement with Professor Peter Jackson, Chair in Global Security at the University of Glasgow and the SCGA’s first executive director, that there has been a pressing need for some years now for an institute of international affairs in Scotland. I agree also with the SCGA’s insistence in being non-partisan as only by having such a status will its credibility be upheld both home and away.
Those very words “non-partisan,” will doubtless already have some Scots proffering up the usual “what’s the point?” argument. Some will merely be sceptics, others outright detractors.
Foreign affairs and defence policy are reserved issues they will insist, while others might say let’s get independence done first before thinking about Scotland’s place in the world. Both viewpoints, I would contest, are wrong.
As I’ve argued in this column before, it’s both undesirable and frankly potentially perilous simply to accept that foreign policy should be left in the hands of the UK government.
Non-partisan the SCGA might be, but the garnering of the expertise at its disposal and dissemination of its research is a necessary part of Scotland having its own voice on international issues and their impact at home.
To those who repeatedly ask about the validity and value of the likes of the SCGA, I repeat again, I’ve never subscribed to the idea that the pursuit of independence is somehow distracted by or undermined by a simultaneous focus on global issues and where Scotland stands on them.
Nothing could be more short-sighted than to sit around waiting until after independence before harnessing the incredible wealth of talent we already have here in Scotland that could help undertake some of the research-based heavy lifting that would help shape our take on the world post-independence.
Far from the SCGA’s position as non-partisan being a drawback or negating its worth, it gives better guarantees that it will not see things through rose-tinted glasses. It lessens too the chances of it becoming a pointless mouthpiece giving those of us who desire independence only what we want to hear.
If such an institution and its work is to be of real value in shaping both Scotland’s take on the world and our place among the community of nations, then by its very nature it must be sufficiently non-partisan. Only then can it be authentic, and its work empirically based in a way that makes it of undeniable benefit.
Right now more than ever, we need such expertise at our disposal in our small but aspirational nation. So, let’s park the now all too familiar negative gripes and welcome, engage with and give our support to the Scottish Council on Global Affairs.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel