Kerry Jones

21st November 2021

The speech linked below sums up everything that is wrong with NATO and especially the UN.

The United Nations was formed on 24th October 1945, immediately after the Second World War to succeed the League of Nations as a vehicle to promote peace. For this we pay about half a billion pounds, just for peace keeping projects or family planning projects in third world countries. The UK pledged £154M. The amount of funding given to Multilateral Aid, which includes NGOs operating under the UN banner, is opaque.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was formed on 4th April 1949 in the US. Its aim was to forge peace in Europe and counter the threat by the US of communist Russia. The US fear of the communist threat should have ended with the founding of the Russian Federation but, in my opinion, too many people found that they were on to a profitable bandwagon; especially the weapons manufacturers, so NATO went looking for other threats and conflicts to become involved in.

Colonel Guile’s frustration with the politicians is plain to see from his speech to the soldiers under his command, and shows the danger and futility of the expediency that rules the political mindset. This is not only a fictional problem as shown by Colonel Guile. We just need to look closer to home. British politician Nick Clegg in 2018 was appointed Head of Global Affairs for Facebook after losing his Parliamentary seat. In taking this appointment he appears to having forgotten his vocal and claimed principled stance when he, along with others, blocked the UK’s Communications Data Bill in 2012 – also known as “the snoopers charter”.   He is quoted as saying that privacy was a “qualified right”. A perfect example of his pragmatism regarding privacy and Facebook is displayed relating to women’s ovulation cycles and other medical information. The link below explains the issue.

Both UN and NATO as have only been around for just over seventy years and were products of the World War Two mindset. The world has changed, the reds under the beds hysteria has gone, new financial powerhouses have risen, so therefore why do we need to have these bloated and in many instances discredited organisations?

Perhaps the world needs a more independent and self sufficient view. The UN, due to its aid and subsidies, are financing and keeping in power corrupt despots in Africa. If the aid stopped, perhaps the people would rise up and shed their learned helplessness, hold their leaders to account, and become less dependent on aid. NATO stabilisation forces have time and time again been accused of sexually abusing both women and children with no action taken against them. Enough is enough. Our government is giving billions of pounds to these organisations that could be better spent at home. It’s time we stopped being the 5th largest contributor to the UN. The UK spends 2.1% of our GDP on defence in NATO, second only to the US. Imagine what we could do with that money on our island. We don’t need to get involved in peacekeeping missions given the bad reputation they have. We are paying for a gravy train – wouldn’t it be better to put that money into our country and its citizens?

Sadly I believe that nothing I have written will come to pass, and any politician in Parliament who supported the above sentiment – from the main parties – would be a Turkey voting for Christmas.

Normally I would end my piece here, but I think that we will encounter a danger in the future regarding who will succeed Boris Johnson. Three of the main contenders are Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak. The first two may not be as problematic, but there is a risk regarding the motivations of Rishi Sunak. His wife is from one of the wealthiest families in India, and they met whilst both were studying in Stanford University, USA. His wife’s father Narayan Murthy is the founder of an IT services company Infosys, and is a multi billionaire – nicknamed the Indian Steve Jobs. The risk is that his father in law will see it as normal practice to influence, even pressurize, his son in law to put in place policies or laws that will openly favour or advance his families businesses – gaining UK government and NGO contracts.

The links below show that there are concerns

The last of which could have effect on our foreign policy,

This may be an issue for the future, or possibly now, given the number and value of government contracts Infosys holds. I know it is controversial but we do need to consider how to protect ourselves and our businesses and political policies from outside nepotistic interference.

Kerry Jones 

International Affairs Spokesperson 

For Britain