A ‘fifth column’?
On Tuesday, a letter was published in The Times outlining my views on the need for deeper integration in the European Union in areas relating to foreign, security and defence policy. Criticising a previous leader in The Times, I argued that the debate in Britain on the proposed ‘Reform Treaty’ had become narrow-minded and insular, getting increasingly bogged-down in squalid debates on the so-called surrender of sovereignty to Brussels. Rather, I suggested that we—Britons, and other Europeans—needed to look beyond our own shores for once, and note the alarming changes underway in other parts of the world. Some of these, like the re-emergence of a wild and truculent Russia and an expansive China, have the potential to weaken our global power and authority, perhaps also undermining our economic dynamism and social cohesion.The response in some quarters only proved my point. A commentary by Richard North on ‘EU Referendum’ suggested that my arguments represented the ‘fifth column’, and that my aim was to undermine the British state. According to Mr. North, the ‘Reform Treaty’ meant that Britain would lose its sovereignty, which is apparently ‘like virginity—you either have it or you don’t.’ This is profoundly mistaken. Sovereignty is not absolute. After all, does Mexico have the same sovereignty as the United States? Is not China more sovereign than Mongolia? Isn’t Brazil more sovereign than Suriname? The answer is clear: While most states recognise others as formally ‘sovereign’, in reality sovereignty is relative. Weak countries are always subjected to stronger ones. The economic, cultural and political power of a great power permeates surrounding societies, shaping their political processes and policies, on both a domestic and international level. Imperial power—that is, the control or influence over other countries’ domestic politics and development—did not fade after the end of the European empires, it simply took a number of new forms.
Mr. North then accused me of ‘the “Run to mother Europe” ploy.’ Had he taken greater notice of contemporary European history, he might have realised that Britain joined the European project in 1973, and thus ran to Europe a long time ago. After successfully remaining part of Europe for more than thirty years, British trade in goods and services with the rest of continent has grown to almost sixty percent of Britain’s total. With between a third and a quarter of the world’s wealth, Europe represents a rich, prosperous and stable market, which can only expand even further as economic growth continues in the new Member States. And given that the European Union has been a principal contributor to the peace and security of the continent—along, of course with the security umbrella provided by the United States and NATO—we, in his own words, really were ‘able to ride off into the sunset and live happily ever after.’ War and conflict on European soil are now unthinkable, and probably impossible. The task now is to defend what we have achieved in Europe from the dangerous world beyond our borders.
Therefore, my argument still holds: As China, Russia, India and a number of other regional powers rise in the coming years, Britain’s international power and authority will continue to decline. The United States, with increasing trade and interests in Asia and the Pacific Rim, is unlikely to maintain large military forces in defence of the European Union; and it would be very wrong for Europeans to expect it to do so. Indeed, many American forces have already been redeployed from Britain and Germany to Central Asia and the Middle East. The future will hold only more of the same. And why should Americans defend Europe? Are we not rich enough to defend ourselves? Do we not have the political will to browbeat our enemies into doing our will? Are we unable to stand up for our values and interests with the use of armed force? Europe’s future is bleak if the answer to all of these questions is not a firm ‘yes’. A strong European Union will have the military and political cohesion to work with the United States in order to sustain Western primacy. A weak Europe will distract American concerns, and empower forces hostile to Western civilisation.
So the Europhobes are in no position to lecture pro-Europeans on issues relating to the European Union. Whereas we have the energy and vision necessary to mobilise the European Union’s enormous potential, the Europhobes only want to bring it, and everything it represents—an area of freedom, economic prosperity, human rights, democratic values and a durable peace—crashing down. The Europhobes are the real ‘fifth column’ on our continent; pro-Europeans must prevent anti-Europeans from moving from the margins of politics into the mainstream of political debate.
22 comments:
1. It's Doctor North if you want to be formal. Otherwise, Richard North.
2. You are making the common mistake of confusing sovereignty with power.
3. And the book you wrote on the history of the European Union was called? You might try reading mine, before you sound off about my not knowing my history.
4. Why do you feel the need to use the word Europhobe? Are you really that insecure?
1. Sincere apologies.
2. No, I am not. It seems to me that sovereignty and power are entwined. Or even, that power comes before sovereignty: One can have power without sovereignty, but not sovereignty without power.
3. I’m studying for a Ph.D. in European Studies and I deal regularly with the fine detail of European treaties, speeches made by officials, and reports issued by military strategists. I also deal in detail with the reality of the European Union (I noticed in your post that you accused me of dealing with neither). As such, I know that Britain cannot go ‘running to mother Europe’ as you put it, for Britain has long been a part of the European Union (and its predecessors)—in this case, since almost a decade before I was born!
4. I would hope my use of ‘Europhobe’ shows my supposed insecurities no more than your frequent deployment of ‘Europhile’ reflects yours...
But in any case, thank you for visiting my web log!
Perhaps anti-Europeans would be more factual than Europhobes, but in the end the difference is not that great: tabloid-type shouting seems to have taken over the English (more than British) debate on Europe.
Thank you, James Rogers, for being a sane exception with a strategic view.
Regards
Ralf Grahn
Many thanks, Ralf! I think you may be right: ‘Anti-European’ is probably a better term to use than ‘Europhobe’. I tend not to like the term Eurosceptic, for that masks some people’s agenda. I think one can remain a Eurosceptic but still support at a general level the European Union. I would describe myself as a pro-European, although not uncritically so. There is much in the Union, from lack of confidence to the Common Agricultural Policy, that I would like to see changed...
The idea that Chinese tanks are going to stream across the Channel if we don't form the Single European Army is nothing more than hysterical scaremongering. Even if China somehow managed to cross the Middle East and seize the entire European Continent (yes, it really is that ridiculous already), so long as Britain has Trident there is really nothing any country can do to forcibly remove our sovereignty.
China (&co.) is a threat only in so far as it is able to outcompete the United Kingdom in economic terms, and the European Union creates, locks in and expands anti-competitive practices and legislation that we left behind in the 1970s. To compete with China we need to be able to adopt a more competitive (ie. laissez faire) economic model, and the European Union is very effectively preventing us from doing that.
Creating "Das Armeegruppe Europa" is at best pointless and at worse a costly and time-consuming distraction from what really has to be done.
For someone who praises the EU as a bringer of peace (an interpretation of dubious objective historical validity), I would hope you would be able to look beyond the 19th century militarist view. Sticking together seven failed Empires in the hope of making one great Empire again is a fundamentally anachronistic view of the world, and something that should be fought vigorously.
If you want terminology, how about Unionist and Separatist?
I read Misspent Youth by Peter F. Hamilton a while back and he depicted a future 50 years from now where those were the names of the two movements.
They are a lot more precise than Europhile and Europhobe/sceptic.
Why are people like you (James Rogers) so obsessed with the idea that the EU must be a 'superpower'? What is this ridiculous 'we must be a superpower because they are' nonsense? I do not want to be part of a superpower, I want full sovereignty restored to my country the Netherlands. No foreign rule, period!
So you study for a Ph.D in some 'European study' or whatever its called. You apparently hope for future employment in the Reich organization then? A high paid job with double pension, generous expense accounts and extremely low taxation?
And people like Richard North (and myself and many others) are 'anti-Europeans' according to you? There also happens to be a more accurate word than europhile for people like you, the word being: quisling (as opposed to patriots like me).
Like the late real life Quisling, people like you actively aid and abet in selling out your own countries' national democracy to what is essentially the rule of a foreign power. Which also would be classified under this nomer: treason.
Because I am against the EU organization, I am more pro-Europe than you are, for the well established fact that the EU is bad for Europe (and for Africa too --> farming/fishing etc...).
Anyway, back to you, quisling.
Marcel
Some of these comments are not really worthy of any detailed response—for example, the European Union is clearly as far away from a Nazi Reich than any institution could be, and I did not advocate anywhere that Chinese tanks would be rolling over the European plain anytime soon. Further, the application of personal insults (i.e. ‘quisling’) shows on the other side an exhausted argument. It is at the moment when one’s opponents resort to insults that they have lost the intellectual debate.
But more generally: Unfortunately, power is and will always remain the most important dynamic of global affairs. Power may manifest itself through a myriad of different forms, but it will not go away. Those with the ability to funnel power through institutions capable of sustaining their internal cohesion and a hard external border against outside enemies and opponents will succeed; those unable will atrophy and fade away. Europeans, therefore, ultimately have two futures: One is where they galvanise their enormous potential and act as a powerful force for good in the world; the other is where they remain divided and weak, set to become the pawns of tomorrow’s great powers.
Treason was a term used by the British Monarchy to describe the Founding Fathers. But would you still use the word, Marcel?
Perhaps Hamilton, Madison and Jay are quislings in your vocabulary, too?
In my humble opinion, union level decisions (including security) require union level democracy.
Regards
Ralf Grahn
I quite agree, Ralf. I should imagine that Marcel has been reading a preposterous article by an anti-European by the name of John Laughland, whose anti-European musings often pollute The Spectator. His last article sought to compare the European Union with the Nazi Reich and pro-Europeans with Major Vidkun Quisling, the notorious Norweigan minister of defence, whom later became a collaborator with the Nazis, earning him the position of leader of his country. According to Laughland, Major Quisling cooked-up the notion of modern European Union. I responded to such nonsense via a letter in The Spectator the following week.
James, it is fascinating to follow the muck-raking attempts of Europhobic, Anti-European separatists, or whatever.
They use the Soviet Union, where only the latter word of 'democratic centralism' was applied, or Nazi Germany, where Hitler dismantled the Weimar Republic within a few months after acceding to power.
They totally miss that the European Union has been achieved peacefully by 27 democratic states, bound by the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.
They vehemently oppose the reforms necessary to democratise the EU itself, including full parliamentary powers and fundamental rights for the citizens of the EU.
Many of the more insular English nationalists like to extol the virtues of the special relationship with the US (not a bad thing in itself), conveniently forgetting that the United States has done more for European integration than the UK.
Regards
Ralf
Yes, it is incredible. We have achieved something in Europe that is quite special. The separatists (I think that is a good name for them) are fuelled by nothing other than emotion, and some peculiar attachment to the United States (or the ‘Anglosphere’, which is their new pet project). I look favourably on America, but I cannot indulge in such sentimental nonsense. I fear the separatists would prefer to wrench the United Kingdom out of the European Union—with which it has almost sixty percent of its trade in goods and services—and simply become the fifty-first state. Alternatively, others still think enemies exist on the other side of the English Channel; I even had a debate with a fairly clever person in Cambridge the other day whom believed that Australia and New Zealand had more in common with the United Kingdom on issues pertaining to security and defence than Britain did with the rest of Europe. Having explained to them that a nuclear bomb going off in Paris or Amsterdam, or an Islamist cell’s terrorist attack on Copenhagen, for example, would have immediate and direct impact on Britain—whereas the same would not should it happen Down Under—I think they started to understand.
Ignorance and cant about the European Union are common in Britain now, and people fail to realise or understand just what their Union enables them to be and do. This parlous situation has been brought about by a number of separatists, Europhobes, free-marketeers (who seem to think the Union is a socialist or communist plot, blithely unaware of its neo-liberal agenda in opening the Eastern European economies) and ‘little Englanders’. What is worse is that Unionists and pro-Europeans seem unable to galvanise into a coherent body, able and willing to take their opponents’ small-minded arguments on. I hope—in whatever small way I can—to change that, but it is going to be very hard.
Europe had better look to it's own defenses; we here in America will soon be occupied with the job of remaining one country.
Excellent blog, bookmarked.
I immediately thought of this quote when I read this blog.
"Let it be one cheerful rational voice amidst the din of mourners and polemics." Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1840
Keep up the good work.
Many thanks Anton, but if you’d like regular email updates, add your email address to the subscription service, which can be found to the left.
"Some of these comments are not really worthy of any detailed response—for example, the European Union is clearly as far away from a Nazi Reich than any institution could be,"
I didn't mention Nazi Germany anywhere. Translating "army group Europe" into German was for rhetorical effect (to illustrate the crazed militarism that YOU demonstrate, although admittedly the EU itself does not) and my argument is no less valid for the english translation. Do you have any actual rebuttal, or just nitpicking?
"and I did not advocate anywhere that Chinese tanks would be rolling over the European plain anytime soon."
You said "Europe" needed to develop a military in order to defend itself from Russia and China. What else could you have meant? If you accept that Russia and China are not a military threat then why are you advocating action based on that premise?
"Further, the application of personal insults (i.e. ‘quisling’) shows on the other side an exhausted argument. It is at the moment when one’s opponents resort to insults that they have lost the intellectual debate."
"But more generally: Unfortunately, power is and will always remain the most important dynamic of global affairs. Power may manifest itself through a myriad of different forms, but it will not go away. Those with the ability to funnel power through institutions capable of sustaining their internal cohesion and a hard external border against outside enemies and opponents will succeed; those unable will atrophy and fade away."
Since you accept that there is no threat to Britain's borders, and even if there were Trident renders it irrelevent, for what purpose do you want to gain power? So that you can prop up the internal State? So you can coerce foreigners into slavery? You haven't identified the need for us to spend billions equipping an army for the "non-Imperial Empire" - on what basis do you think it is moral to coerce taxpayers into funding it?
MDC: (1) Had you of read more closely, you might have realised that my response was not only to you, but to a number of other posts. The mention of the Nazi Reich was in reference to Marcel’s comments.
(2) Do not assume that military power is only for defence. Rather, it is a tool of foreign policy, and should—as it always has been—be used to pro-actively shape the world more to our liking. That also means keeping all of our armed forces well above the combined capability of any potential enemy—and here China and Russia are potential enemies.
(3) It’s not a case of ‘gaining power’ as you put it, but rather maintaining power. We—and here I refer to the European Union and the United States—are at the top of the world system. Our forefathers did not do this through being nice but rather through a delicate strategic operation that built up our armed forces and produced political systems capable of funnelling resources into defending and extending our interests and values.
So why do I want to retain power? Quite simple really: Because the whole world would be very different—and I think—a lot worse if we do not retain power. Having a number of social and liberal democracies on top is in my mind a damned good thing. Unless you’re some sort of cultural relativist, I’d hope you’d think the same.
Given that the individual European Union Member States—even Britain and France—will become second rate powers (or maybe third rate?) should America, India and China’s power continue to grow, the European Union offers us the ability to aggregate power at a higher level and remain relatively powerful and secure. In fact, the construction of Britain as a State occurred through a similar dynamic, but that’s another matter.
(4) Do not assume that just because Britain has Trident, that it will remain safe. Firstly, this weapons system depends on America’s good graces. We should have our own fully independent system, and would be better working with France to do so. Second, I do not subscribe to the ‘just because we have nuclear weapons, we are safe thesis’ anyway. Not sure how old you are, but it’s quite plausible that within my lifetime a rival power like China will develop technologies capable of providing a good deal of defence against Britain’s small nuclear weapons system. What then? Third, there are a whole number of other contingent factors to consider, not least the potential of some theocratic regime emerging and popping a few bombs off at us, and not caring about the consequences, for whatever religiously inspired reason.
So bluntly, we need to keep the strongest possible military. Britain is a spent power; the European Union is a rising power. Britain should do everything it can to gain as much influence over the direction of the European Union in these matters, which will not only make Britain safer, but also the rest of Europe and our other friends and allies across the Western World.
"(2) Do not assume that military power is only for defence. Rather, it is a tool of foreign policy, and should—as it always has been—be used to pro-actively shape the world more to our liking."
So you chose "coerce foreigners into slavery". Welcome to the nineteenth century!
"That also means keeping all of our armed forces well above the combined capability of any potential enemy—and here China and Russia are potential enemies."
I can't tell if you're coming or going. You start by saying we need a strong military to fight Russia and China, then rebutt my response to this by saying you didnt say that, and then rebutt my response to that by saying you did. Which is it? And if you do think we need a strong military to fight Russia and China, can you please respond to the critique of this in my first post?
"(3) It’s not a case of ‘gaining power’ as you put it, but rather maintaining power. We—and here I refer to the European Union and the United States—are at the top of the world system. Our forefathers did not do this through being nice but rather through a delicate strategic operation that built up our armed forces and produced political systems capable of funnelling resources into defending and extending our interests and values.
So why do I want to retain power? Quite simple really: Because the whole world would be very different—and I think—a lot worse if we do not retain power."
Our forefathers lived in a different world. Nowadays no one has much interest in fighting "great power" wars that you're describing. Nuclear weapons make them impossible, and trading is far more worthwhile anyway.
"Having a number of social and liberal democracies on top is in my mind a damned good thing. Unless you’re some sort of cultural relativist, I’d hope you’d think the same."
I'm not a socialist, so no I dont want a socialist EU to be on top. I would rather move to America than support that, even if it meant opposing my own country, to which I am dearly attached.
"Given that the individual European Union Member States—even Britain and France—will become second rate powers (or maybe third rate?) should America, India and China’s power continue to grow, the European Union offers us the ability to aggregate power at a higher level and remain relatively powerful and secure. In fact, the construction of Britain as a State occurred through a similar dynamic, but that’s another matter."
Goodness me. So you want to fight America and India as well now? What has the world done to deserve this? So long as we have nuclear weapons, none of these countries are any threat to Britain's sovereignty. It's true that, say, Poland does not have this luxury, but that is what NATO is for - to throw the US-UK-French nuclear umbrella over the weaker peripheral states of the West. So given that we are immune to outside aggression, I ask again: what is the purpose of maintaining a "great power" army? to prop up the internal state, or to enslave foreigners?
"(4) Do not assume that just because Britain has Trident, that it will remain safe. Firstly, this weapons system depends on America’s good graces. We should have our own fully independent system, and would be better working with France to do so."
So you think that we should get an independent deterrent... by making ourselves reliant on France? Why? Not only does this not achieve an independent deterrent, but it makes it dependent on a country that's even less in tune with our interests than the US, which is just about as in tune with our interests as is possible to be, quite frankly. The idea that the US would cut us out of getting more missiles is pretty ludicruous, but if it ever did happen that it became thinkable then sure we should develop our own missiles. But what does making the Grand Army of Europe have to do with this?
"Second, I do not subscribe to the ‘just because we have nuclear weapons, we are safe thesis’ anyway. Not sure how old you are, but it’s quite plausible that within my lifetime a rival power like China will develop technologies capable of providing a good deal of defence against Britain’s small nuclear weapons system. What then?"
Sure, by 2050 maybe China will be able to defeat Britain's 2007 deterrent. But will it be able to defeat Britain's 2050 deterrent? This seems unlikely.
"Third, there are a whole number of other contingent factors to consider, not least the potential of some theocratic regime emerging and popping a few bombs off at us, and not caring about the consequences, for whatever religiously inspired reason."
There isn't anything we can do to stop this, if it happens, which I dont think it ever will, because theocracies are rarely conducive to scientific and technological avancement, not to mention economic advancement. Every dictatorship that has tried to gain a ballistic nuclear system has failed. Pakistan has succeeded in making a bomb, but only a drop bomb designed to travel a couple of hundred miles to India.
"So bluntly, we need to keep the strongest possible military. Britain is a spent power; the European Union is a rising power. Britain should do everything it can to gain as much influence over the direction of the European Union in these matters, which will not only make Britain safer, but also the rest of Europe and our other friends and allies across the Western World."
Oh dear oh dear. So many things are wrong with this. Most importantly that it is based on a false premise, as I have explained, but even if the premise is valid the insistence on the EU as the medium through which to put our conclusions into practise is idiotic. The EU is bureaucratic, incompetent and general opposed to any sort of violence, even against genocidal maniacs like Saddam. It condemned Saddam's hanging for christ's sake. This is the sort of organisation that would have sent Red Cross parcels to Goering, and you think it ought to be in charge of our defence? Sheer insanity.
Now if you want to be really bold in implementing these sorts of ideas, go for some sort of enhanced NATO pact, or better, an anglosphere agreement (the continentals are far too pacifist to be any use anyway, really). But as it stands, you've got a terrible method of implementing a bad idea.
MDC: My responses, to your comments (in quote marks), again in bold:
‘So you chose "coerce foreigners into slavery". Welcome to the nineteenth century!’
No. Of course not. There is a big difference between using military power to shape the world and coercing foreigners into slavery. You do like to make vast logical jumps. Also, regarding world order. you may be right: The twenty-first century may indeed be similar to the nineteenth, particularly if China and India continue on their upward trajectory. The alliances now taking shape in the region are remarkably like a game of Bismarckian realpolitik. Japan, America and India seem to be forming an alliance to contain China, which in turn is working more closely with Russia. Australia and New Zealand, also worried about Chinese power in the region, are attempting to bolster their naval capacity. There was in interesting series of articles in the latest two editions of Warships: International Fleet Review. I’m assuming you read it?
‘I can't tell if you're coming or going. You start by saying we need a strong military to fight Russia and China, then rebutt my response to this by saying you didnt say that, and then rebutt my response to that by saying you did. Which is it? And if you do think we need a strong military to fight Russia and China, can you please respond to the critique of this in my first post?’
Not ‘coming or going at all’. As I said earlier, the Chinese and Russian militaries are no real threat to us at the moment, but they are certainly a threat to far weaker countries surrounding them. We have seen just how aggressive Moscow has been with Georgia in recent weeks, maybe violating the country’s airspace and firing missiles into its territory: Georgia is a country in the European Neighbourhood, and a future NATO member. We have to retain a strong military to prevent the Russians, the Chinese, or any other authoritarian government, from harming our friends and our interests, or the aura of power we have built up over the years.
‘Our forefathers lived in a different world. Nowadays no one has much interest in fighting "great power" wars that you're describing. Nuclear weapons make them impossible, and trading is far more worthwhile anyway.’
Did they really? I seriously disagree. The world today is only different in some ways and in some regions. In many other places—with which we still have to interact—it most certainly isn’t. Try telling a Darfurian or an Afghan that the world today is different. And again, it is not a case of what emerging and potential ‘great powers’ can do to us, but rather what they can do to others, which we have either interests in protecting, and so on.
‘I'm not a socialist, so no I dont want a socialist EU to be on top. I would rather move to America than support that, even if it meant opposing my own country, to which I am dearly attached.’
Who an earth said anything about being a socialist? And the European Union is not ‘socialist’ in any sense of the word. This is silly nonsense, frequently associated with anti-European propaganda. The European Union contains a whole number of different Member States, all sharing some things in common like democracy, freedom of expression and tolerance, but there is some differences between Britain and Spain, for example, or Estonia and Germany. Indeed, the British trade unions are so annoyed at what they see as the neo-liberal Reform Treaty that they are threatening to oppose the British government on the issue!
‘Goodness me. So you want to fight America and India as well now? What has the world done to deserve this? So long as we have nuclear weapons, none of these countries are any threat to Britain's sovereignty. It's true that, say, Poland does not have this luxury, but that is what NATO is for - to throw the US-UK-French nuclear umbrella over the weaker peripheral states of the West. So given that we are immune to outside aggression, I ask again: what is the purpose of maintaining a "great power" army? to prop up the internal state, or to enslave foreigners?’
Who an earth said anything about fighting America and India? Really, this is becoming very silly. Nonetheless, it is not necessarily the case that British/European interests will coincide with those of America. I can see no future myself where there won’t be at least something in common, but also to be considered is the growing disparity between British and American power, which will be amplified even further between now and 2050, particularly if America’s population grows by two-hundred million, as demographic projections indicate. London grows less relevant in Washington as each year passes. We need other avenues too, like the European Union—with which we are not allied but actually a part! And again, we need a powerful military to defend our friends and to instil into any potential opponent that there will be consequences if we are pushed too far. And please, do stop this ‘enslave foreigners’ nonsense; it really is puerile.
‘So you think that we should get an independent deterrent... by making ourselves reliant on France? Why? Not only does this not achieve an independent deterrent, but it makes it dependent on a country that's even less in tune with our interests than the US, which is just about as in tune with our interests as is possible to be, quite frankly. The idea that the US would cut us out of getting more missiles is pretty ludicrous, but if it ever did happen that it became thinkable then sure we should develop our own missiles. But what does making the Grand Army of Europe have to do with this?’
I think it is already the case that Britain and France collaborate quite closely on nuclear deterrence, so we are in many ways already interconnected with them. Our ballistic missile submarines visit their ports and vice-versa, and there are frequent visits between officials in the two powers’ atomic weapons establishments. And I take strong issue with your statement that Britain has more in common with the United States than France. This is just idle nonsense. It is quite clear than if a nuclear weapon were ever to be detonated on Paris, Calais or almost any other French city, it would likely have an immediate and direct negative impact on Britain (the same goes for almost any other mainland European city, due to geographic proximity). It would also have massive consequences for our trade and economic well-being, as so much of our imports and export travel through areas likely to be damaged. If a detonation occurred on New York or Washington, it would have no or extremely limited direct impact on us. There would certainly be some economic implications, but we could survive them. This means in effect that an attack on France is an attack on us. Do you really believe the United States would potentially sacrifice even one of its cities for the whole of Britain? I don’t, and presumably the British government doesn’t either. Finally, you ask: ‘What does the Grand Army of Europe have to do with this?’ Well, plenty, as it happens. Contained within the Reform Treaty is a ‘solidarity clause’ and a mutual defence clause, whereby all Member States pledge to defend one-another should a terrorist attack occur, or if one is victim of armed aggression. What if a large radiological or nuclear device were let off in Amsterdam or Dublin in the future? We would become directly involved, not only because it would harm us immediately, but also because of the legal obligation as contained in the treaty.
‘Sure, by 2050 maybe China will be able to defeat Britain's 2007 deterrent. But will it be able to defeat Britain's 2050 deterrent? This seems unlikely.’
Could Britain even afford such a deterrent by then? I’m hoping you’ve heard of defence inflation?
‘There isn't anything we can do to stop this, if it happens, which I dont think it ever will, because theocracies are rarely conducive to scientific and technological avancement, not to mention economic advancement. Every dictatorship that has tried to gain a ballistic nuclear system has failed. Pakistan has succeeded in making a bomb, but only a drop bomb designed to travel a couple of hundred miles to India.’
We have to make projection based on the future. The number of nuclear powers is increasing. The technology is no longer so expensive or difficult to master. We also have to consider if heterogeneous and potentially unstable countries like Russia and China do not break down or experience revolution... And Iran?
‘Oh dear oh dear. So many things are wrong with this. Most importantly that it is based on a false premise, as I have explained, but even if the premise is valid the insistence on the EU as the medium through which to put our conclusions into practise is idiotic. The EU is bureaucratic, incompetent and general opposed to any sort of violence, even against genocidal maniacs like Saddam. It condemned Saddam's hanging for christ's sake. This is the sort of organisation that would have sent Red Cross parcels to Goering, and you think it ought to be in charge of our defence? Sheer insanity.’
This is a shocking statement. Please prove that the European Union is ‘bureaucratic, incompetent and general [sic] opposed to any sort of violence.’ The European Union’s bureaucracy is smaller than the bureaucracy of Hamburg or Birmingham; if the same number of people are needed to administer a continent of almost 500 million as a city of two million, they must be awfully efficient! But that aside, are you aware of the development of the European Security and Defence Policy? Do you not know that the European Union has undertaken in the last three years sixteen military and civilian interventions in foreign countries—including a considerable display of force in Congo, under Operation ARTEMIS in 2003, where European Union forces killed people in gunfire exchanges? And all I can say to your statement that Brussels would send parcels to Goering is: Grow up!
‘Now if you want to be really bold in implementing these sorts of ideas, go for some sort of enhanced NATO pact, or better, an anglosphere agreement (the continentals are far too pacifist to be any use anyway, really). But as it stands, you've got a terrible method of implementing a bad idea.’
NATO will fade away in the coming years, particularly as Washington continues redirecting its armed forces and strategic outlook away from us in Europe and towards Asia. I’d suggest reading this article on the subject, which can be found here. The Anglosphere? That’s nothing but silly, sentimental nonsense, much like the old Commonwealth. Neither are of any use to Britain. European integration is a reality, and it is intensifying. Get used to it, for it will not stop or go away!
The argument here seems rather developed but I would like to make one point.
"the European Union offers us the ability to aggregate power at a higher level and remain relatively powerful and secure"
The problem with this that I and many anti-EUasasuperstate people have with the joy of 'ever closer union' is that by aggregating power further away from us we lose control of it. Britain is no longer a Super Power but that is no reason to conduct relationships with other European countries by joining with them body and soul.
In other words, free trade in the EU, great idea. We should extend beyond that, as indeed we could have done if we still held the power to conduct trade negotiations. More than that is a loss of self determination that requires considerable justification. That justification is thin on the ground currently.
I am not sure how i got directed to this website but I did and i rather enjoyed the comment discussions if only because it consisted, philosophically, of the two competing European voices. I say i enjoyed it because the discourse and reasoning rarely, if ever, regressed into the narcissistic post-modern cow dung...otherwise known as Europreach...that too many of your contintental comrades feed me every day. (Dung aint fertilizer).
I just wanted to comment on the "special relationship". That construct continues to be relevant to this day, not because of economic considerations or political utility, rather something much more intimate and intangible. The fact is that many Americans, whether we admit it or not, tend to foster and preserve this instinctively paternal attachment to England. This can be seen in the telling way that England, beginning with North Africa in 1943, would view the former colonies with a father-like pride and a father-like annoyance simultaneously. He saw then and still can only see a wobbly,over-sized youngster that has so much to learn but doesn't want to hear it. It is true. And deep down, England is proud of the United States...and views the ultimate rise to international supremacy as the result of genetically shared characteristics, exclusively present in the anglo/british political and philosophical DNA. Couple that with two wars killing each other, primary custodians of a language continuously expanding global reach, and our commonly derived antipathy toward catholicism and any condition where absolute power is legitimate ...and naturally the US still defers to and looks up to England especially at the most basic and unarticulated level....regardless of appearances or conditions everywhere else
Falco: First, Britain will lose more power if it does not integrate into the European Union. The country is in relative decline as a number of Asian powers grow. Britain is the most powerful Member State in the European Union and has a great deal of influence over its general direction. Demographic and economic indicators suggest that Britain’s relative position in Europe will also grow in the coming years. Gaining more influence over a political union of almost five hundred million people should be London’s primary objective. Second, free trade rests on political power, and global power more precisely. Without the latter, the former is put in jeopardy.
Brett: The so-called ‘special’ relationship between Britain and the United States will continue to decline in the coming years. As Britain’s power fades in relation to America’s, Washington will have no use for us. In fact, the Iraq war may well be the last high-point in the relationship. And besides, America should not have to concern itself with Europe, and should concentrate on Asia instead. We Europeans must take care of our own affairs.
Post a Comment