by Londonrake » Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:15 pm
Just to show I'm not deaf to the accusation. I don't think it's a case of "bum chums" though, perhaps more one of getting on with the log-jam of major problems at home whilst Macron takes the lead on this.
A pay-walled article:
"Britain has shamefully left it to Emmanuel Macron to confront the Turkish threat.
As someone who is used to getting his own way, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is clearly riled that Emmanuel Macron, his French opposite number, is trying to thwart his increasingly aggressive efforts to bolster his standing in the Muslim world.
Whether it is backing Islamist militias in Libya, or providing military support to Azerbaijan in its recent offensive to reclaim the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia, Mr Erdogan is showing a reckless appetite for military adventurism. The only problem is that, at almost every turn, the Turkish despot’s actions are meeting with unwelcome resistance from Mr Macron.
While Britain, in common with most other European nations, has tended to turn a blind eye to Mr Erdogan’s increasingly offensive behaviour, France has been conspicuous in its attempts to curb the Turkish leader’s expansionist designs.
In Libya, for example, France has lent its backing to the rebel leader General Khalifa Haftar, who has been involved in fierce fighting against the Turkish-backed militias based in the Libyan capital, Tripoli. In addition, France has provided military support to Greece and Cyprus in response to Turkey’s attempts – taken in conjunction with Tripoli – to claim access to vast energy reserves in the eastern Mediterranean. And, more recently, Mr Macron has been forthright in condemning Turkey’s “bellicose” support for Azerbaijan during the escalation of tensions in the South Caucasus.
The confrontational attitude he has adopted towards the Turkish leader is part of a broader effort on the part of the Elysee Palace to assert itself in traditional areas of French influence, with Mr Macron's high profile intervention in Lebanon’s latest political crisis being a case in point.
France’s more assertive approach to these important regional issues, moreover, is the reason why Mr Erdogan has felt it necessary to launch his rancorous attack on the French President. He claimed Mr Macron needed “a mental health check up” when the latter condemned Islamist extremism after a Chechen terrorist decapitated a French teacher for showing pupils a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Paris has now withdrawn its ambassador in protest.
If the Turkish leader’s intemperate outburst is likely to raise questions about his own mental well-being, the diplomatic spat between Paris and Ankara also begs the question as to why the British Government is not adopting the same robust stance as France in curbing Mr Erdogan’s ambitions. Compared with France, Britain’s voice has been strangely muted in confronting Turkey, even though it could be argued that, given Britain’s recent history of involvement in the Middle East, it has far more at stake.
Unlike France, Britain has been a prominent player in the major conflicts to affect the region over the past three decades or so. The fact, for example, that Iraq today has a democratically-elected government, one whose recently-appointed prime minister, Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, met with Boris Johnson last week, is, ultimately, the legacy of Britain’s participation in the controversial military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Libya, too, is another country where Britain has made a decisive contribution to reshaping the political landscape, even if the prospect of establishing Iraqi-style democracy in Tripoli is less certain. Nor should we forget Britain’s military contribution to defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) fanatics who briefly established their so-called caliphate in Syria and Iraq.
Britain’s investment in these campaigns far exceeds that of France, which abstained from the Iraq war and played a marginal role in defeating Isil. And yet, at a time when Mr Erdogan’s increasingly aggressive approach, together with his support for Islamist extremists such as the Muslim Brotherhood, threatens to create a new era of instability, it is France, not Britain that is making all the running.
Some may question whether our Prime Minister, who still includes his role as President of the Anglo Turkish Society on his list of ministerial interests and is said to be proud of his Turkish ancestry, has any appetite for a confrontation with Mr Erdogan. When Mr Johnson last spoke to the Turkish president, at the start of the Nagorno-Karabakh flare-up, the conversation – according to a statement issued by Mr Erdogan’s office – concentrated on improving trade ties and “further cooperation in the defence industry.”
Britain’s approach to the Erdogan problem is certainly the complete opposite of France’s, although I suspect the more likely explanation for this is that, after all the controversies over Britain’s military involvement in the recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, there is the overwhelming view in Whitehall that, when it comes to dealing with Mr Erdogan, we are happy for France to take the initiative.
Even so, adopting such a supine pose risks undermining Mr Johnson’s ambitious plan for Global Britain, an admirable concept that, if it is to have any clout, means taking a stand against authoritarian despots like Mr Erdogan."
