On Freedom of Speech and Thought

I notice that the Deputy Prime Minister is attacking Nigel Farage for daring to differ from the consensus view of the Ukraine crisis, as he did at the very end of their debate. Is this proper behaviour for a minister in the government of a free country, let alone for the leader of a party which styles itself both 'Liberal' and 'Democratic' ?

He does not offer any counter to what Mr Farage says, simply attacking him for having said it, claiming to be 'astounded' by the expression of a dissenting view,  using the words 'perverse' and 'extreme' and of course suggesting that Mr Farage is therefore a supporter of Vladimir Putin.

I should have thought that in the long tradition of foreign policy debate in this country, tough as it has often been, opposing views have generally been allowed.  Mr Clegg's own party was fiercely in favour of punishing Turkey for the Bulgarian atrocities, in a huge foreign policy controversy of the 19th century,  and several of its prominent members were very much against our participation in the Boer War. These views were not universally accepted, but they were not condemned as illegitimate, I think, or treated as if they should never have been expressed.

In modern times, his predecessor as Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, took an admirably principled and correct stand against the Iraq war, against a tide of Murdoch-inspired flagwaving and war hysteria, not to mention government lying.

 

I think the behaviour of the British media, with their uncritical acceptance of the 'Ukraine Good, Russia Bad' oversimplification, has much to do with this. Far too many ill-informed reporters, who have never heard of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, were at nursery school during the Cold War and until a few weeks ago couldn't have pronounced Simferopol or found the Crimea on a map (many still can't) , have been lecturing the British public about Russian inquity and Ukrainian heroism.

 

But the Deputy Prime Minister, who derives his office from a free parliament with a legal opposition, has a duty to rise above this flood of drivel.

If he disagrees with Mr Farage, let him say why. Did the EU not intervene aggressively in Ukraine, knowing perfectly well that its intervention was unwelcome to Russia, and that Ukraine itself was strongly divided on the issue? Did the EU not know of the existence of parties and factions such as Pravy Sektor or Svoboda, not famous for their tolerance? When Ukraine's legitimate government rejected its association agreement, did the EU accept the position and gracefully withdraw? Not exactly.

 

Did its High Representative for Foreign Affairs not mingle with the anti-government mob, abandonding diplomatic discretion? She did.  Have EU leaders not raised false hopes that in some way EU association will raise Ukraine's standard of living (in the short term, it would almost certainly lower it, by destroying protected industries and agriculture, and the long-term is hard to see, given what has happened to other exonomic basket-cases which have been hurriedly included in the EU. Why, even the supposed 'success story' Poland has had to send hundreds of thousands of young men and women abroad to find work). And what about the deal under which President Yanukovich was supposed to remain in office for his elected term, a deal which collapsed almost as soon as it was made, a deal in which EU foreign ministers were involved as sponsors? Who broke it?   

 

Why is it either perverse or extreme to criticise this reckless diplomatic conduct? Many have died following these events, and some would say they died because of them. Some controversies may have only one side. This is not one of them,  and Mr Clegg should not act or speak as if it were.