Author Archives: Christian de Vartavan

Embed from Getty Images
President Macron delivered a landmark speech at France’s Atomic Energy Centre, CEA, in Bruyères-le-Châtel last Friday, building on the technological and commercial objectives France is seeking to achieve, as discussed in my article published last Wednesday, “Time for the UK to Engage with Europe on AI Sovereignty.” In his speech, Mr Macron set out France’s determination to secure sovereignty in computing power, quantum technologies and semiconductors, while also building the capacity to lead the market in these strategic sectors.

This article was due to appear in September when I asked for a second referendum, but I delayed it as I thought at the time that it would appear as purely academic. Political reflection has evolved since then.

The Prime Minister repeats endlessly her political mantra that Brexit will bring a brighter future and happy tomorrows. The student of history knows how costly any secession or independence can be, with usually an array of sweat, tears and too often blood, even with the best plans. This was precisely the sense of my question to FM Nicola Sturgeon at the RSA recently: ‘If Scotland would be independent, have you made any plans to project the country in the future?’ To alert her of the dangers of such program more than know about them. Matthew Taylor, who moderated, said ‘Very big question’ then turning to her ‘I suspect the answer is ‘yes’’!. She of course replied ‘Yes, is the answer to that question….’. Mrs May, to whom I pointed out I could ask the same question for Brexit, would have equally said ‘yes’. As a member of a family who has helped reformed two states, Egypt (1920’s) and Brazil (1958), and created one republic from scratch – the First Republic of Armenia (1918-20) – I will humbly point out that any such project is a costly adventure no matter how well prepared you are and even if you are on the ‘right side of history’ to quote Mr Obama during his inaugural speech

It is on the latter point I wish to dwell. World history, including the European one, has a flow and some like Lord Heseltine, see it very well. President Roosevelt once formulated it with the vocabulary of his time: ‘You can delay the development of civilisation, but you cannot stop it’. The world, whether one likes or not, tends towards unity even if this is in the future. The European idea is a step towards this unity; Brexit a delay triggered by those who consciously or unconsciously react to this global change: Open border and this free movement which Mrs May wants ended, mingling of nations at an increased pace, decentralisation of the financial world and education, etc… Even the French Prime Minister recently stated that English is the ‘Langua Franca’ of the world – a true revolution considering the onerous ‘Francophonie” program which aims to restore the influence of French in international circles.

I was on Sunday watching BBC News when I heard Mr Ed Husain, adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and senior advisor at the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, says exactly but in different words (and reversed similar statistics) what I have wrote in my last article : You do not kill an idea with bombs, i.e. that the Islamic State (IS) should not only be challenged at body but more at mind level if we wish to see it vanish. I do not know if Mr Husain reads the Liberal Democrat Voice, no doubt he had developed his ideas long before me, but it is interesting that similar views and solutions are independently expressed on such grave matter.

It is, in my opinion, a three tiers cocktail which may defeat the Islamic State (IS). Since a few days we hear a lot about the first tiers, i.e. the military option which by bringing war into the enemy’s camp attempts to neutralize its exponential expansion as well as increase our security – if not because attacking, as we all know, is best defence. We also talk a lot of the third one, i.e. the “after IS” or “after Daesh”, which is rightly concerned with the vacuum which the elimination of IS may leave in Syria and Iraq; no less the difficult political actions which need be taken to paliate this vacuum.