X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

John Bercow was right to criticise Donald Trump

7 February 2017

8:49 AM

7 February 2017

8:49 AM

John Bercow has taken a lot of flak for his comments about Donald Trump. The Speaker has been accused of being an embarrassment to Parliament for saying Trump wouldn’t be welcome to address MPs during a state visit. But amidst all the fury, Bercow’s pre-emptive ban does touch on a deeper question about the muddled thinking in British foreign policy.

Several autocrats, many with poor human rights records, have addressed both Houses of Parliament: Emperor Hailie Selassie of Ethopia in 1954, Nikolai Bulganin of the Soviet Union in 1956, and his successor Alexei Kosygn in 1967, have all done so. And during Bercow’s time as Speaker, the Emir of Kuwait and President Xi Jinping of China, have also spoken in Parliament. It goes without saying that every one of these leaders has a considerably worse record on civil and political rights than Donald Trump, even if the early days of Trump’s Presidency haven’t been encouraging.

‘Kuwait’s government aggressively cracks down on free speech, using provisions in the constitution, the national security law, and other legislation to stifle political dissent,’ says Human Rights Watch. Kuwait’s law, said Amnesty International, gave ‘women fewer rights than men in family matters, such as divorce, child custody and inheritance’. China is a one-party state, where even the country’s top judicial official attacked the idea of an independent judiciary. While between July and September 2015 – one month before Xi’s address to Parliament – China interrogated nearly 300 lawyers, as part of an effort to crack down on NGOs, activists, and the media. 

This raises two key questions: firstly, is it more effective to bar an objectionable leader, or to skewer them with a smile? There is no evidence that Bercow sought to block the Kuwaiti and Chinese visits to Parliament. What’s more, when he welcomed Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah five years ago, Bercow went as far as praising Kuwait as a ‘nation of innovation’ and a ‘pioneer in the political representation of women’. But Bercow did insert some spiky language into his greeting:

‘Equality before the law, irrespective of race, gender, disability or orientation, is fundamental to our society here in the UK and we expect to be held to that standard. Naturally, we hope that that principle of equality will be practised and championed across the world.’

During Xi’s visit, Bercow was even more subversive. He praised the Indian prime minister as ‘representative of a great democracy,’ invoked democracy campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi and the ‘innate human right of freedom’ in his speech, and warned Xi that ‘the world will be watching’. The speech was a triumph in passive-aggressive concision, while allowing the government to pursue its controversial engagement without serious upheaval. Would this have been a preferable approach in the case of Trump? A few pointed references to multiculturalism, diversity, and respect for judges would surely get the message across. 

Secondly, is it right to judge established autocrats differently to apparently wayward democrats? Trump’s presidency, scarcely two weeks old, is certainly going backwards. Trump has apparently insulted at least one of the country’s closest allies, tweeted like Colonel Gaddafi, and launched an unprecedented attack on the judiciary, labelling the federal judge who blocked Trump’s visa ban a ‘so-called judge‘. But for his faults, Trump is not locking up lawyers, censoring the internet, or jailing protesters and these are meaningful differences. Our legitimate concern about authoritarian tendencies must be distinguished from actual repression, and here there is simply no comparison. Is it right, then, to welcome Xi, but exclude Trump?

On the other hand, America is different. It holds itself to higher standards. ‘We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone,’ declared Trump in his inaugural speech. But he did ask that it ‘shine as an example for everyone to follow’. Britain also has an interest in upholding the ideas of non-discrimination, religious tolerance, and the rule of law. When democracies flout these principles, the breach seems more shocking and concerning than when a Communist dictatorship does so. This is why there is then a need for greater effort to reassert the principles which are at stake. It may be argued that repeating principles makes no difference to Trump’s behaviour. Perhaps. But for the cooler heads around Trump, such as Defence Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and Vice-President Mike Pence, seeing the impact of the president’s words and actions on international perceptions of the United States has an effect.

Yes, the Speaker is wrong to try and play a key role in foreign policy. But the Government has already taken a calculated risk in engaging the president more rapidly and enthusiastically than any other ally, even as he attacks his own judiciary, as well as allies like Australia. It’s true that many with more sullied records have addressed Parliament in the past. Timing and context, though, are important. Trump is not a normal president, and his trip will not be a normal state visit. The Government should tread carefully when it comes to engaging with Trump.


Show comments
Close