The Middle East is a region so important to Britain’s strategic interests that HM Government’s choice of ‘Minister for the Middle East’ or in its long form, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), Middle East & South Asia, is crucial to this country’s effectiveness in pursuing its diplomatic and commercial aims from Morocco to Iran.

The FCO’s official Twitter feed piqued my interest this morning when it announced that Britain’s new Middle East Minister, Alistair Burt, was on his first official visit to the region, in San’a, Yemen. I take a keen interest in the issues of the Middle East & South Asia, in fact I’ve done work there, and so I was curious about the background of this man who now represents us and our interests in a region of more than 400 million people, with its array of social, cultural and economic challenges, and indeed opportunities.

A quick look at Alistair Burt MP’s Wikipedia page shows no particular background of work or engagement in the Middle East except for one role: “leading officer” of the Conservative Friends of Israel, one of the best connected and most effective pro-Israel lobby groups in Westminster.

I don’t have a problem with lobbyists or groups of people who come together to push for their side of an argument to be looked at more closely or to ask for particular concessions or directions in policy. I do however think that in a region as sensitive as the Middle East, where Britain needs strong relationships with all 20 Arab nations, whose population totals more than that of the United States and from which much of the conflict of the 21st century has so far originated, we need to make the right choice of Minister.

David Cameron must carefully consider potential conflicts of interest and issues of perception when deciding who walks down the steps of the FCO’s Dassault Falcon in Beirut, Cairo, Damascus & Riyadh and bats for Britain’s corner in diplomatic & commercial dealings. Of course Britain is a friend of Israel – that is settled policy and we will always support Israel’s right to exist, hopefully sometimes being a critical friend where the Israeli government crosses the line or when we feel they are acting against their own interests or those of the greater good.

But perception and paranoia are key considerations in a region which often feels, rightly or wrongly, that it is treated unfairly by, or is under attack from, the West. Choosing a leading pro-Israeli lobbyist, a man who clearly is not impartial when it comes to the dispute in the Levant, is a strategic mistake in my opinion, and sends a negative message to the rest of the Middle East.

There is a wider issue here about what kind of people get ministerial posts. Sadly, in our parliamentary system, all too often very important portfolios and departments with budgets in the billions, are handed to MPs with zero experience in that particular field and often in any field at all apart from politics. Nicolas Sarkozy made an inspired choice for his foreign secretary, Bernard Kouchner, the man who founded Medicins Sans Frontieres, with vast experience of the issues facing the world, with no doubt an amazing network of contacts spanning the globe. Britain’s Prime Minister should have the luxury of appointing experts to some of the big strategic ministerial posts – it would make the work of each government much more effective.

In the meantime, perhaps the PM might consider that his choice of Middle East Minister might just work against as well as for, Britain’s interests & aims in the region. If Britain’s Minister for the Middle East was a staunch pro-Arab/pro-Palestine lobbyist then I have no doubt that Israeli diplomats and ministers would feel cause for alarm – the same logic works the other way round.

I’ve been reading up on Chatham House’s latest report, out this morning, on the UK’s role on the world stage. Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) is one of the world’s leading institutions for foreign affairs thinking. Since 1920, Chatham House has sought to inform politicians and diplomats of challenges and potential new ways of approaching foreign affairs challenges, through academic study, publishing and debates with some of the world’s leading states-people.

Britain’s role in the world has never been permanent. We are particularly subject to world conditions, being the open economy, and open culture that we are. Britain has led the world on globalisation, since the days of the British Empire. Some form of Anglo-Saxon free market principles underpin much of the modern-day capitalism that drives commerce. In the 20th century, Britain’s status as an imperial power waned thanks to war and the desire for independence throughout the British colonies, and the UK had to find new ways of influencing the world, and that continues through our cultural influence, our economic influence, our history and our position in a number of international organisations:

"The UK is perhaps the only country of its size, resources and assets to continue to play a global role, given its history, its position as a global hub (for instance through the English language, the role of the City of London, its universities, etc.), and its membership of international clubs (the Security Council P5, European Union, Commonwealth, NATO, G8, G20, etc.)."

In the most recent years, Britain has retained a position of global leadership by carrying out military action on a number of fronts. Iraq & Afghanistan come to mind first and foremost, but Britain has also been active in Kosovo, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Bosnia and a number of other places. We have also developed a ‘hub mentality’ whereby policy-makers have made it easy for global businesses to base themselves in the City of London for example, which has also contributed to the country’s influence. High quality education, the fact that the UK is the home of the English language, and the work of organisations like the British Council have also been factors in retaining a global role for Britain.

But as the Chatham House report points out, the whole world is now in a phase of uncertainty. Globalisation is at a peak, countries are interdependent more than ever, financial peaks and troughs affect people and societies on the other side of the planet. The Internet is widespread and simple cross-border or global communication is no longer a distant concept. The aptly named ‘global economic crisis’ which began in 2008 and in many ways is continuing today, as well as the growing list of sovereign debt crises which have knock-on effects around the world, demonstrate that we are all more vulnerable to international instability than we were in the past. As an open society, Britain is more likely to suffer from this international volatility than a more sheltered country would:

"Globalization is now in the midst of a ‘long crisis’ – an extended period of volatility as the world attempts to reconcile its demographic, economic and security challenges, within the constraints of scarce natural resources. As an open society and economy, the UK’s exposure to global risks is substantial and likely to grow. The main sources of strategic surprise for Britain will come from beyond national borders, constraining options available to government at home."

So how will the country adapt to this new international reality? Will a Conservative government which seeks to distance itself from Europe, threaten China with its nuclear arsenal and cut-and-run from challenges in places like Afghanistan, do what is necessary to retain Britain’s influence in the world over the next decade?

The report should be read in its entirety if you are interested, and you can find the link at the end of this article. But Alex Evans and David Steven make one overarching point: the UK, in order to be effective on the world stage must continue to be a ‘thought leader’ on the key issues of the economy, global security, global warming etc., rather than assume a position of leadership based on might and muscle alone. The executive summary says that ‘in order to organise for influence’, Britain should:

• "Establish new standards of leadership on global issues, by opening civil service posts to external applicants, recruiting more ambassadors for issues, appointing ministers for cross-cutting issues, and making more strategic use of knowledge and cultural assets (both publicly funded and independent) such as the Ditchley Foundation, the Defence Academy and the British Council."

• "Effectively deploy the UK’s membership of key alliances and networks, advance its ‘global competitiveness, global warming, and global poverty’ agenda for the European Union, using the Toronto G20 summit to launch the Prime Minister’s international agenda, and playing an active role in driving a reform agenda through NATO."

• "Develop the intelligence structures needed to support better decision-making, by building on its commitment to open data, conducting analysis jointly with other countries in order to drive consensus, developing capacity to rehearse comprehensive responses to global challenges, and creating a ‘red team’ to test assumptions on global risks."

• "Focus on the legitimacy of its foreign policy at home, by supporting a bigger role for Parliament on foreign policy, while using reform of the Lords to enhance the capacity of the Upper House on global issues."

• "Make bold decisions on scarce resources, conducting a first-principles review that looks across all UK international expenditure, allocating budgets by strategy not department, and systematically increasing ‘surge capacity’ to allow faster reaction to both risk and opportunity."

You can download the Chatham House report, Organizing for Influence: UK Foreign Policy in an Age of Uncertainty, here:

In the early hours of this morning, in international waters in the Mediterranean sea, Israeli naval commandos stormed boats forming the flotilla that left Istanbul last week carrying humanitarian supplies to the Gaza Strip. Of course, it was always clear that the flotilla was making a political point out of its actions, they wanted to humiliate Israel – but the bottom line is they were delivering things like wheelchairs and building supplies to the Gazan population, who have been living under embargo for years.

Reports are suggesting that so far up to 19 protesters and aid workers on board various vessels have been killed by the Israeli commandos. Whatever your view on Israel, and it is an emotive and complex issue, it’s never okay to use such cold-blooded tactics to shut down a humiliating protest. I don’t know what the intentions of the Israeli Defence Force and Defence Minister Ehud Barak were in authorising this action, but it will only serve to weaken Israel’s already testy moral authority on the world stage.

The use of such heavy handed tools resulting in the deaths of innocent people is unacceptable regardless of any factor, domestic or international, that has led to a long-term feeling of insecurity of a state. What’s more, the attack of civil ships in international waters is an act of piracy. And even if the boats were in Israeli waters, there’s still no grounds for the use of deadly force on unarmed protesters.

We haven’t yet heard statements from the major Western powers. It’s unlikely, to be clear, that Hillary Clinton or William Hague will use tough rhetoric in their statements. Israel, despite all of its recent actions which go against the grain of international cooperation and the efforts of the world to seek a peaceful settlement in the Levant, is still an ally of the West. But the more we see actions like the widespread destruction of humanitarian infrastructure in Lebanon in 2006 when Israel was fighting with Hezbollah, the inhumane treatment of civilians in Gaza and the use of falsified British and other Western passports to assassinate Hamas operative Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai at the start of the year, surely the more tone-deaf the West will become when Israel has a real need for international support.

You can’t use a sledgehammer to break open a walnut. If you do that you’ll smash the walnut. Israel has a strong basis for moral support from the West, but there’s not a lot of goodwill left following a list of shocking actions on behalf of the Israeli state over the last few years. The country is heading for pariah status – perhaps that’s what Israel needs to wake up a desire for change throughout the Israeli population. If there’s no real change in the near future, there will be no goodwill left at all, and it’s Israel which will suffer because of that.

–

One final point: let’s not make this an issue of anti-Semitism. You can quite easily criticise the actions of Israel even if you’re a staunch Zionist. There’s no moral or ethical reason to support any and every action carried out by a country you believe in.

–

UPDATE: William Hague has issued a statement, calling for Israel to open its blockades of the Gaza Strip and deploring the loss of life on this morning’s raids: http://tinyurl.com/2u66snp.