Reader TTS

Let us hope that Boris Johnson reads TheArticle. In the first part of a series based on his exclusive interview with Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, Jay Elwes yesterday

revealed the depth of concern about China at the heart of the intelligence community. Huawei poses a threat to British security “without question”, Sir Richard says, if its technology were

incorporated into our communications. “It’s a capability in the bank which China will use if it needs to,” he told Elwes. Sir Richard’s warning comes as Johnson appears ready to ignore the

Trump Administration, which strongly opposes any role for Huawei or other Chinese firms in sensitive systems for the West. Meanwhile, the danger posed by China has been highlighted by its

bullying of Hong Kong — which proved counter-productive in last weekend’s presidential election in Taiwan — and its horrific treatment of the Uighur Muslim community in Xianjing. For Sir

Richard, China under Xi Jinping is a unique threat: “They’re using modern technology to create a huge authoritarian Big Brother state in the way that no others are.” He is critical of the

“enthusiastic China-huggers” David Cameron and George Osborne. Their legacy still dominates attitudes in Whitehall and the City. The China problem is only one, though perhaps the most

serious, of the foreign policy problems in the Prime Minister’s in-tray. Also high on the list is Russia, where the entire government has just resigned to make way for President Putin, 67,

to reshape the political system to make it even more compliant. He is evidently determined to extend his authoritarian rule beyond the end of what should be his final term in 2024. Putin

could try to make himself President for life, though that would risk provoking new opposition. But there is speculation that he plans something far more ambitious: the reinvention of the

Soviet Union under a new guise, by merging Belarus and perhaps other former Soviet republics with Russia. Putin would hold the executive presidency of such a new union unchallenged, while

demoting that of Russia to a more ceremonial role. Such a re-emergence of the Soviet Union would pose a huge challenge for Nato. Ukraine, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania have borders with

Belarus; all would feel threatened. Putin has sown discord between the United States and Europe over many issues, most recently the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Then there is the ongoing

occupation of the Donbas region of Ukraine by Russian proxies. The West hardly presents a united front against Russian aggression. What would happen if Putin were to test Nato’s resolve to

enforce Article 5 of the treaty, which obliges the US to defend every member state, even at the risk of nuclear war? Right now, of course, Iran is at the top of the list of foreign policy

concerns. The regime is still issuing bloodcurdling threats almost daily. Western leaders have to take Iran seriously because, as this month’s shooting down of the Ukrainian airliner showed,

its regime is capable of any atrocity. The fact that this particular crime was probably an accident does not inspire confidence: after all, the Iranians initially lied about it and

destroyed evidence. In their eyes, the Islamic Revolution has never ended; and, as religious revolutionaries, the mullahs consider that their apocalyptic end justifies even the most

murderous means. Finally, how should Britain handle our closest but most unpredictable ally, the United States? It has emerged that, in the aftermath of the death of Soleimani, Donald Trump

threatened 25 per cent tariffs on car imports from Europe if Britain, France and Germany did not take punitive action against Iran for violating the 2015 JCPOA deal that prohibits

development of nuclear weapons. The _Washington Post_ reports that one European official described this as “extortion”. However, the three European signatories to the deal all say that they

had no choice but to activate the dispute clause, after Iran announced in the aftermath of its exchange of missiles with the US that it no longer felt bound by the JCPOA’s restrictions.

Indeed, the writing has been on the wall for some time: Iran has clearly resumed its nuclear ambitions. Yet Josep Borrell, the EU’s new High Representative, still maintains that the nuclear

deal is “more important than ever”. Boris Johnson, meanwhile, sees his role as a transatlantic “bridge” between Washington and Brussels. He proposes a “Trump deal” to replace the JCPOA,

which was negotiated by President Obama. Yet the Prime Minister will find few takers on either side of the Atlantic for the idea that, even if President Trump were not distracted by the

small matters of impeachment and a presidential election, Ayatollah Khamenei is about to authorise a new deal with the country against which he has sworn vengeance. As a former Foreign

Secretary — the first to become Prime Minister since John Major — Boris Johnson hardly needs reminding that Britain is only a medium-sized player in the great game of global diplomacy. But

there is some curiosity, at home and abroad, about how he will use his independence once Brexit takes place in a fortnight’s time. As one of only two major European powers to enjoy a strong

majority in Parliament (the other is Emmanuel Macron in France), Boris Johnson is on a roll. He is getting Brexit done while maintaining surprisingly cordial relations with the EU and the

US. The UK economy is still sluggish but the medium-term prospects are brighter. The Prime Minister sees himself as a winner. He has made a good start; but he is some way from matching the

world chess champion Magnus Carlsen’s record run of 111 games without loss. He needs to listen to experienced voices such as Sir Richard Dearlove’s before rushing in where angels fear to

tread. Only then can Boris Johnson hope to become a grandmaster of the diplomatic chessboard.