World stability is getting shakier by the day thanks to Covid

This year will be notorious in history not just because of Covid-19 but because of the way it has been exploited. Look around the world and see what is going on. Russia is being more aggressive than ever. The Russian military are currently engaged in the biggest naval exercise off Alaska since the Cold War. And when a US B-52 bomber flew over the Black Sea in international airspace two Russian Su-27 Flanker jet fighters intercepted it in such a hair-raising manner, literally wooshing past the bomber's nose just 100ft away, that the US Air Force pilots must have thought a collision was imminent. It was Russian bravado at its most dangerous. The Pentagon complained but the Kremlin doesn't care. Then there's Turkey war-rattling with its old enemy, the Greeks, never mind that both countries are in the same Nato alliance. China loosed off some carrier-killing missiles in the South China Sea to remind the US that its nuclear-powered carriers are vulnerable if they come too close to what Beijing views as its domain. Everywhere governments are struggling to cope with the Covid pandemic, warning of second waves hitting their populations in the autumn. There is an overwhelming sense that governments have lost their grip, there are still too many unknowns about this virus. After half a year of fighting the virus, we are still at the pandemic's mercy. The longer it goes on the more, I fear, certain countries will seek to exploit it. What the world needs is stability and responsible leadership. We're not getting it.

Classified intelligence in the US is a political weapon

John Ratcliffe, the Trumpite director of national intelligence, has caused a political uproar by declaring in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee that, in future, secret briefings on foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election will be given in writing and not by witnesses appearing before the committee. In other words no searching questions allowed. The reason for making this decision comes right at the end of the letter to Senator Marco Rubio, acting Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Senator Mike Warner, the leading Democratic member of the committee. It says this step has been taken to stop the leaking of classified briefings on the election to the media. It is true to say that in Washington there is no such thing as secret intelligence. One way or another, classified material gets into the papers and it's more often than not as a result of "Congressional sources" revealing all to their favourite reporters. It has been going on for as long as I can remember. Intelligence is a big political weapon. It can be used by both sides in the political game to exploit their particular views. In this case, Ratcliffe has taken action because the most sensitive issue right now, two months before polling day on November 3, is foreign meddling, particularly by Moscow which seems intent on trying to make sure Trump is reelected. Secret briefings on this issue have made big headlines in the papers. Personally if members of a committee which is privileged to receive classified briefings from America's top intelligence chiefs then leave the chamber to ring their newspaper contacts that's a clear case of irresponsible, even unlawful, politicising of an issue affecting national security. But this is Washington. This is what happens and has always happened. Also, it is right that the public should know exactly what is going on vis a vis the Russians and other possible meddlers before they vote on November 3. But this surely can be done in unclassified statements from the White House or the intelligence community. The danger of senators leaking what they have heard in classified briefings is that they might reveal something which gives away to the enemy, whoever the enemy is, what the US does to get its information, including its secret sources. The problem is that if Ratcliffe is now only going to allow written briefings the contents could still and will still be leaked to the media, with the added political twist no doubt. Basically everyone by now knows that the Russians want Trump to have another four years and are doing all kinds of social media, cyber and propaganda stuff to persuade the voters to go for Trump and not Joe Biden. Ratcliffe's decision to stop direct briefings to the Senate and House intelligence committees on this issue only serves to give the impression that he is trying to suppress what is going on. Whether that is true or not.

Getting people back into their offices

The one positive out of the long months of coronavirus-driven lockdown and working from home is that a large proportion of people have saved money. Quite a lot in some cases. No commuter travel costs. No lunchtime sandwiches round the corner from the office. No going out to restaurants, cafes, cinemas, theatres, bowing alleys, gymns, swimmming pools. Suddenly there's money in the bank. But now the UK government and the US government and no doubt many others around the world are trying to persuade everyone to go back to work and sit in their offices rather than work from home. Not for their sakes but for the sake of the general economy in city and town centres which are dying on their feet through lack of people. All the shops and restaurants that rely on the lunchtime trade are going out of business. It's desperate for them. But how can governments persuade people to stop working from home when they can prove they are functioning perfectly well on their computers at home and, as a bonus, seeing more of their children and saving loads of money. No one enjoys commuting by train into work, wasting valuable time and spending hundreds or, in many cases, thousands of pounds a year in travel costs. But at some point people who were perfectly prepared to do the train or bus journey into work every day five or six months ago will have to make a decision that benefits not just their employers but also the myriad of small businesses that depend for their very existence on the commuters. We can't have ghost cities and towns for ever. If we are to return to some form of normality then the millions of people who have settled into a way of life based around working from home will need to get up and go to work. Otherwise the general economy is never going to revive. Rishi Sunak, the UK Chancellor, came up with the idea of offering to help pay for people to go back to restaurants by slicing £10 per person off the bill for a meal. Pehaps now he should think of a way of persuading people to go back to work with a special one-off bonus for those who return to their offices and give up their work-from-home routine.

"No one will be safe" if Biden wins

Are there any rules in politics? Is there a clause somewhere in the US constitution for example which states that all men or women elected to be president of the United States are obliged by statute to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Well no there isn't but perhaps it should be added as an addendum. Donald Trump has taken truth and accuracy to a new level, downwards. Like that wonderful expression "alternative facts" coined by Kellyanne Conway, the soon-to-depart Trump counsellor. She used it when trying to put across the view that more people had attended Trump's inaugural ceremony in 2016 than the number given by newspapers, the police and many others. Trump has a wardrobe of alternative facts at his disposal and uses them liberally. Take his comment about Biden during his big acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday. He said the US would not be safe under Biden because he planned to release from jail 400,000 criminals on to the streets "and into your neighbourhoods" and then defund all police departments across the country. Presumably so that those 400,000 freed criminals can go whoopee and start looting shops and banks at will. It's a great line but is it truthful or accurate or honest? I can't remember Biden hinting at doing anythng like this. But he probably said something about the police after all the shootings involving white police officers opening fire on black people, and he may have said he was worried about overcrowded prisons. I'm not sure. But under the alternative facts syndrome, Trump presumably felt he was justified in going the whole hog and warning people that if they voted for Biden they should expect a knock on their door the next day and be confronted by an Armelite-carrying hoodlum just released from jail. Trump also took credit for reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs. But I could have sworn Barack Obama did that in a piece of legislation in 2014. That's a classic piece of alternative facts. Some people might think Obama was responsible for reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs but if you look at it from a different angle - Trump's angle - he, Trump, did it. Unless you are a devoted Washington politics addict you're not going to know whether Trump did it or Obama did it but if Trump says he did it, then hell of course he did. It's outrageous but if you can get away with it, who cares. Or that at least seems to be the strategy behind many of the claims Trump made in his acceptance speech. IF the whole country believes everything Trump says, whether an alternative fact or a real fact or a blatant untruth, then he will be reelected in a landslide. Biden and Kamala Harris are hoping that not everyone will believe Trump is telling the truth.

Tanks a million but you're finished

Tanks are so yesterday. Or so think some sections of the UK Ministry of Defence which believes that tanks have had their day and can be mothballed just in case they might be needed in some future conventional land war. Well it's true to say that the last time Britain sent tanks off overseas to fight a war was 17 years ago against the Iraqi Republican Guard. The British Challenger 2 tank unquestionably played a role not only in defeating the Iraqi regime forces in the south around Basra but also in protecting soldiers. Likewise the Warrior infantry fighting vehicles which are also facing the scrapheap. It IS possible that tank warfare is a thing of the past and wise defence ministries now need to focus more on moving into a new high-tech warfare mode, spending money on long-range super-fast missiles and drones and cyber weapons. But can this country, or any country, really know for sure whether tanks are no longer going to be needed? Tanks are the real symbol of land warfare. The US are retaining their tanks although only with the army. The Marine Corps is in the process of divesting itself of its 200 or so tanks, as well as its heavy artillery, preferring to switch to a lighter more flexible warfare rolle. The Royal Marines don't have tanks. Never have. Tanks are the preserve of the British Army and if they all get mothballed, then the army will be deprived of one of its reasons for existence. The Royal Tank Regiment, the King's Royal Hussars and the Queen's Rpyal Hussars would disappear or be obliged to take on a different role altogether. By the way, as General Lord Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff, stated on British Forces Broadcasting Service today, the idea of mothballing tanks in case they might be needed in the future is both naive and impractical. It would be like putting an E-Type Jaguar into a garage for several years and expecting it to come roaring out into the sunlight in full working order. The mighty tank battle between the latest Russian high-tech tank and the mothballed British Challenger 2s! I don't think so. Basically the Challenger 2 has had its day. It has been around for more than 20 years and needs replacing which would mean allocating billions of pounds for a new tank in the next few years. Where would the money come from? That's why there is talk now of scrapping or mothballing the Challenger 2s and Warriors. It's about money and don't let anyone claim otherwise. But if the removal of the tank from a battlefield in which the British Army has a role to play is going to make sense it will have to be shown that the UK government has a proper strategy for the defence of this nation. In other words, if not tanks, what else? Will it be hypersonic missiles or super drones capable of destroying the enemy? Probably. But only heavy armour can actually hold ground against a charging enemy, so do we just leave that to others while we fancy around with super high-tech wizardry? Is that the strategy? It better sound good when the current defence review is completed in November. Otherwise anyone with any knowledge of defence will say the review was all about saving money, not spending it.

Eat out to help out plus a dose of Covid-19

The UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak came up with this brilliant idea: Go out and eat in a restauant and we, the Treasury, will cover 50 per cent of the bill. It was a way of encouraging people to leave their homes and eat in a restaurant desperate for customers. It might as well have been called Save Our Restaurants. Instead he thought up "Eat out to help out". It sounds a great idea. But there's a big drawback. Many of the restaurants don't seem to care a hoot about the social distancing guidelines and the masks. It's just put as many bums on seats as possible and get that lovely money back from the Government. Take Brighton for example, a very popular seaside resort with tons of young people. The meal deal lasts from Monday to Wednesday and I can tell you that every restaurant and cafe in the centre of Brighton tonight was crammed full of people. Every table was booked and every table was filled with people. There was no social distancing. I visited about eight restaurants trying to find somewhere to eat and was met with shaking heads and rooms sizzling with people cheek to cheek. It was like a mass rave party. No sign of the police though. So here's the big drawback to the Chancellor's good idea. The chances are that the Monday to Wednesday 50 per cent off have a a meal out dictat will cause Covid-19 spikes around the country becau se none of the guidelines are being followed. It's a free for all eating bonanza.Nobody cares who is sitting at the table a foot away from them. It's cheap food!! I hope I'm wrong.

Will the world be a safer place under Biden or Trump?

Will the steady hand of President Joe Biden or the wild gesticulating of President Donald Trump bring a safer world? The way the world is going it's hard to see which of the two men is more likely to contribute towards global stability, peace and prosperity. Trump's unpredictability and liking for instinctive go-it-alone announcements have certainly added a certain je ne sais quoi to world politics but I doubt that has made the planet a safer place. It has certainly irritated Xi Zinping, the Chinese president, caused Vladimir Putin to smile and flex his chest muscles, confused Kim Jong-un to such an extent he seems to be not in the best of health right now and angered beyond description the ayatollahs in Tehran. Plus most of Europe has had enough of Trump and Trumpism. But will Biden's more nice-man approach keep everyone happy? Well, first of all, except in Moscow, there will be a huge sigh of relief. However, I fear that after Trump's battering approach towards foreign policy, not many capitals are going to be in the mood for doing instant deals, whether trade, diplomacy or nuclear (in the case of Tehran and Pyongyang) with Biden in the White House. There will be a period of curiosity, suspicion and wait-and-see. What's most important is for Washington and Moscow to get together to extend the New Start Treaty to maintain or reduce the level of nuclear warheads each country has for another set period. The current treaty is due to end on February 5 2021. Trump insists on having China as part of the negotations because Beijing has been accelerating its nuclear warhead stockpile. China has shown no interest but might Beijing agree under President Biden, rather than under President Trump? With the Chinese you never know and I haven't any idea whether Xi Zinping might prefer to do a deal with Biden or Trump. But what I can predict is that at this stage if China continues to show absolutely no interest in joining strategic nuclear arms reduction, Beijing will get a much tougher response from Trump than from Biden. That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating a second-term Trump but I think Trump will be tougher than Biden in confronting the rising threat posed by China. Putin would definitely prefer Trump to win but does that mean he will be ready to do a nuclear deal with him? He just might because Russia can't afford a nuclear arms race. You could argue that on that basis he might also be prepared to come to a deal with Biden. The answer to the question above is therefore impossible to say right now. Either way we are in for an unsettling period in world politics.