Full Version: Geopolitical challenges for Great Britain...
During the Cold War, Britain was had a ‘special relationship’ with the united States focused around containing and defeating the forces of global Communism. The KGB/Stazi had infiltrated Europe at the time and it is well known that the ‘peace’ movements of the early eighties were led by either KGB agents/sympathisers of the USSR. Europe, led by socialist leaderships didn’t have the resolve required to defeat the USSR. It undoubtfully true that the moral character of the Iron Lady, along with the Reagon inspired bankrupting of the USSR – through the arms race – which led to the fall of Communism.
Despite the talk during those years of the close cultural ties between the British and American people, the brutal reality behind that special relationship was that Britain was a satellite of the United States. When Britain attempted to exercise an independent role in the world, particularly sensitive regions to America’s national interest, we were brutally punished. The Suez Crisis, where President Eisenhower worked with the USSR to totally humiliate Britain ended the dreams of the British Establishment to have a genuinely independent foreign policy vis the US. Despite what the far-left had to say, our satellite relationship with the USA benefited us and when the ‘Enemy’ was defeated in 1990, we continued in this role.
However, this caused increasing tension with another force developing in international relations, the growth of the proto-federal European Project. The concept of a united Europe, was initially sponsored by the Nazis during WW2 and if Germany had won the war, many if not most of the post-war community structures would have been created under Hitler’s leadership. Luckily, this didn’t happen. The other main intellectual force behind the Project was the leftwing internationalists, many of them defectors from Stalinist Communism, who dreamed of a USE which could challenge the plutocracy of America. Behind these main intellectual foundation blocs for the EU, was the corporate muscle of German industrial cartels along with a odd coalition within France. The Franco-German axis has always dominated the growth of the EU, up to the present day. The elements of the collaborationist Vichy regime in post-war France wanted to continue their wartime project in working with the Germans. Moreover, the Gaullist nationalist school of thought wanted to see a French dominating European Union to challenge the Anglo-Saxon powers. Finally there was the French Left, Socialist and Marxist, who wanted to see the development of a supranational socialist European bloc aligned with the USSR to destroy America.
The Founding fathers of the European Project, (see http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacen...ive?article=104) saw the European Union as a means to a political-economic federal bloc opposed to the United States. This is something that the British political elites have never told the British public, and for many ordinary people, like Tony…L, they prefer to remain in blissful ignorance. During the Clinton era of international relations, this didn’t seem that importance. America and Europe, despite subterranean diverging shifts, seemed strategic partners in the emerging post-cold war international environment. The ‘election’ of Bush in 2000, totally changed this situation. The pre-9/11 policies of the Bush Administration, showed a disturbing unilaterism which a total disregard to the interests or opinions of the rest of the world. The sponsorship of Radical Islam by the CIA in Afghanistan has created a Frankenstinian Monster, which has turned on its creator during the horrific events of 9/11.
The world had a huge amount of sympathy for the Americans after that eventful day, yet Bush has squandered that collective emotion. Through the invasion of Iraq, for geostrategic and geoeconomic reasons, anti-Americanism has become a largely universal force. Even within Britain, over a million marched in London and talking to ordinary British people, the ‘silent majority’, there is a growing fear of America. The agenda of the neo-conservatives, with their longing for a World War Four with a Islamic-Christian clash of cultures is terrifying for most ordinary people, including me. Although you can over-emphases the power the neo-cons have within the Administration, it is undoubtfully true that their worldview, with its messianic belief of the superiority of the American Way of Life, has captured many ordinary Americans. As fear, revulsion and distrust for America grows throughout the world, even in staunchly traditional allies, such as Britain, Japan and South Korea, America is gradually turning into a ‘rogue state’. This is a highly controversial view for ordinary Americans.
This creates an extra-ordinary problem for the British. In Oxford, where the next generation of British policymakers emerge, there is a great anti-war and growing anti-Bushite/american feeling. This CANNOT be ignored, since it is the young that most represent the emerging political and intellectual trends in the twenty first century. Even among traditionally pro-American, Eurosceptic people, like moi, the Iraq War has challenged my value-system. The same experience is occurring across millions of thinking British people.
Should we remain with an increasingly unpopular and hated America across the world? By doing that, we create numerous enemies and place the British peoples future literally in the policymaking of the White House. If the present policies of the Bush Administration continue, the growing cultural divergence of the British (and Continental) public will grow with the Americans. The tensions, in particular the bullyboy tactics at the moment with Iran, within the ‘special relationship’ will achieve a eventual breaking point. Not only that, by becoming a totally dependant economic-political satellite of America, we open ourselves to attacks by Islamist terrorists (and Russia, see http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...16/102442.shtml).
Of course, this presumes that the present ‘cowboy’ mentality of the American government continues, and this cannot be taken for vantage. If a centrist Democratic wins the 2004 presidential election, the Iraq war will be seen as a unfortunate blip in international relations. A détente will emerge between the Atlanticist powers of Europe and America and the traditional role of Britain being the mediator between the two blocs will continue. However, if Bush wins and continues his neoimperial and neo-unilateralist policies (which could emerge eventually into neo-isolationism?) this will only encourage global anti-Americanism and the federalising trends within Brussels.
Britain is European in culture, outlook and mentality and has always been different from America. Even so, there have always been close relations between the two peoples and the question is, can this dual role continue? There are three options for Britain:
1) Become fully European: Accept that we are ultimately part of ‘Europe’ and that there is an emerging post-democratic multipolar global order. Instead of remaining under the declining American Dollar, we fully align ourselves with Europe, as part of the Eurasian Axis with Russia and China.
2) Withdraw from the emerging federal Europe, and become a satellite for the United States. This policy will put our destiny in the hands of the Washington policymakers, since if America is destroyed as the hyper power through the ‘dollar hegemony’ (to use Alan Greenspans phase), or the anti-American forces opposed to the USA, we will go under as well.
3) Continue the balancing act: This is what we have successfully managed so far under Tony Blair, and it is still a possibility, presuming a more moderate leadership wins the 2004 election.
In that sense, the geopolitical choice for Britain may be decided by the voters in America…
Despite the talk during those years of the close cultural ties between the British and American people, the brutal reality behind that special relationship was that Britain was a satellite of the United States. When Britain attempted to exercise an independent role in the world, particularly sensitive regions to America’s national interest, we were brutally punished. The Suez Crisis, where President Eisenhower worked with the USSR to totally humiliate Britain ended the dreams of the British Establishment to have a genuinely independent foreign policy vis the US. Despite what the far-left had to say, our satellite relationship with the USA benefited us and when the ‘Enemy’ was defeated in 1990, we continued in this role.
However, this caused increasing tension with another force developing in international relations, the growth of the proto-federal European Project. The concept of a united Europe, was initially sponsored by the Nazis during WW2 and if Germany had won the war, many if not most of the post-war community structures would have been created under Hitler’s leadership. Luckily, this didn’t happen. The other main intellectual force behind the Project was the leftwing internationalists, many of them defectors from Stalinist Communism, who dreamed of a USE which could challenge the plutocracy of America. Behind these main intellectual foundation blocs for the EU, was the corporate muscle of German industrial cartels along with a odd coalition within France. The Franco-German axis has always dominated the growth of the EU, up to the present day. The elements of the collaborationist Vichy regime in post-war France wanted to continue their wartime project in working with the Germans. Moreover, the Gaullist nationalist school of thought wanted to see a French dominating European Union to challenge the Anglo-Saxon powers. Finally there was the French Left, Socialist and Marxist, who wanted to see the development of a supranational socialist European bloc aligned with the USSR to destroy America.
The Founding fathers of the European Project, (see http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacen...ive?article=104) saw the European Union as a means to a political-economic federal bloc opposed to the United States. This is something that the British political elites have never told the British public, and for many ordinary people, like Tony…L, they prefer to remain in blissful ignorance. During the Clinton era of international relations, this didn’t seem that importance. America and Europe, despite subterranean diverging shifts, seemed strategic partners in the emerging post-cold war international environment. The ‘election’ of Bush in 2000, totally changed this situation. The pre-9/11 policies of the Bush Administration, showed a disturbing unilaterism which a total disregard to the interests or opinions of the rest of the world. The sponsorship of Radical Islam by the CIA in Afghanistan has created a Frankenstinian Monster, which has turned on its creator during the horrific events of 9/11.
The world had a huge amount of sympathy for the Americans after that eventful day, yet Bush has squandered that collective emotion. Through the invasion of Iraq, for geostrategic and geoeconomic reasons, anti-Americanism has become a largely universal force. Even within Britain, over a million marched in London and talking to ordinary British people, the ‘silent majority’, there is a growing fear of America. The agenda of the neo-conservatives, with their longing for a World War Four with a Islamic-Christian clash of cultures is terrifying for most ordinary people, including me. Although you can over-emphases the power the neo-cons have within the Administration, it is undoubtfully true that their worldview, with its messianic belief of the superiority of the American Way of Life, has captured many ordinary Americans. As fear, revulsion and distrust for America grows throughout the world, even in staunchly traditional allies, such as Britain, Japan and South Korea, America is gradually turning into a ‘rogue state’. This is a highly controversial view for ordinary Americans.
This creates an extra-ordinary problem for the British. In Oxford, where the next generation of British policymakers emerge, there is a great anti-war and growing anti-Bushite/american feeling. This CANNOT be ignored, since it is the young that most represent the emerging political and intellectual trends in the twenty first century. Even among traditionally pro-American, Eurosceptic people, like moi, the Iraq War has challenged my value-system. The same experience is occurring across millions of thinking British people.
Should we remain with an increasingly unpopular and hated America across the world? By doing that, we create numerous enemies and place the British peoples future literally in the policymaking of the White House. If the present policies of the Bush Administration continue, the growing cultural divergence of the British (and Continental) public will grow with the Americans. The tensions, in particular the bullyboy tactics at the moment with Iran, within the ‘special relationship’ will achieve a eventual breaking point. Not only that, by becoming a totally dependant economic-political satellite of America, we open ourselves to attacks by Islamist terrorists (and Russia, see http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...16/102442.shtml).
Of course, this presumes that the present ‘cowboy’ mentality of the American government continues, and this cannot be taken for vantage. If a centrist Democratic wins the 2004 presidential election, the Iraq war will be seen as a unfortunate blip in international relations. A détente will emerge between the Atlanticist powers of Europe and America and the traditional role of Britain being the mediator between the two blocs will continue. However, if Bush wins and continues his neoimperial and neo-unilateralist policies (which could emerge eventually into neo-isolationism?) this will only encourage global anti-Americanism and the federalising trends within Brussels.
Britain is European in culture, outlook and mentality and has always been different from America. Even so, there have always been close relations between the two peoples and the question is, can this dual role continue? There are three options for Britain:
1) Become fully European: Accept that we are ultimately part of ‘Europe’ and that there is an emerging post-democratic multipolar global order. Instead of remaining under the declining American Dollar, we fully align ourselves with Europe, as part of the Eurasian Axis with Russia and China.
2) Withdraw from the emerging federal Europe, and become a satellite for the United States. This policy will put our destiny in the hands of the Washington policymakers, since if America is destroyed as the hyper power through the ‘dollar hegemony’ (to use Alan Greenspans phase), or the anti-American forces opposed to the USA, we will go under as well.
3) Continue the balancing act: This is what we have successfully managed so far under Tony Blair, and it is still a possibility, presuming a more moderate leadership wins the 2004 election.
In that sense, the geopolitical choice for Britain may be decided by the voters in America…
Closed.
There is no clear question for us to debate here. This is a debate forum, not a place to rant or blog.
PM me if you have a question you would like to pose to us for debate.
There is no clear question for us to debate here. This is a debate forum, not a place to rant or blog.
PM me if you have a question you would like to pose to us for debate.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.