I was listening to a discussion on NATO recently with leading authors on the treaty organisation Oliver Shah and Sten Rynning. As you’d expect there was talk about the threat to world peace from the Ukrainian and Middle East crises. However, it was suggested that actually the situation around the status of Taiwan was the most dangerous.
Taiwan is an island off the coast of China where the Chinese nationalists fled in 1949 as the communists overran the mainland. Until the 1970s it was widely recognised as the legitimate government of China with a seat on the UN Security Council whilst the most populous country in the world remained out in the cold.
After President Nixon’s visit to Chairman Mao that changed, Communist China was recognised, and Taiwan was plunged into political ambiguity. China regards it as there’s and often threatens to take it by force. The United States refuses to recognise it as an independent country but gives it major military assistance. But would it go to war with China over the island? In 2022 President Biden seemed to break a policy of ambiguity (keep China deterred by uncertainty) by saying America would defend Taiwan. It remains unclear if that means beefing up arms supplies if China attacks or actual US troops on the ground.
The experts I was listening to believe the latter. As if the seriousness of Chinese and American soldiers in open combat wasn’t enough, they went on to forecast that whilst America was distracted, President Putin of Russia would attack a Baltic state.
I don’t say any of this is going to happen. It is just the opinion of two experts, but they had clearly given the matter much thought. I needed to write about it because history tells us an interesting story about what actually tipped us into the two world wars. It was the small nations of Serbia and Poland that proved the flashpoints. Currently we think it will be Iran. I’m not convinced.
ALEX SALMOND.
I only met the former SNP leader once in Liverpool. He was at the height of his powers having led his party to an outright majority in the Scottish Parliament despite a PR system designed to prevent majority rule. He also nearly won his country independence.
It has been remarked that if he had been a Labour politician, he could easily have led that party and had Prime Ministerial qualities. My joke to him on that day seems apposite with those considerations. With Westminster politicians making a mess of things, I asked him if we could consider moving the boundary with Scotland from the Tweed to the Mersey and Trent.
His were major achievements and should not be dismissed because of the way his career ended in bitter dispute with his previous political partner Nicola Sturgeon, the failure of his new Alba Party and ill-advised association with Russia Today.
