The maritime geopolitics of Eurasia
Please click on the play button below to watch! And press the pause button for some of the longer blocks of text.
• A version in ‘High Quality’ can be viewed on Youtube. This will make the text clearer.
For any regular readers who have noticed my recent absence, I apologise. For most of Autumn 2008, I was given the opportunity to live and work in Paris. I was appointed as a Visiting Fellow at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, to undertake research on the maritime geopolitics of Eurasia, with a particular focus on the rise of Chinese, Indian, Japanese, South Korean and Russian naval power. As part of my research, I had to give a presentation to the Institute in November. I have since shortened, developed and uploaded this presentation, which can be viewed above.
Any comments or thoughts about my presentation would be appreciated. Please leave comments using the button below.
4 comments:
James - an excellent piece as always, I have several comments to make (I'm sure you expected no less!!) but time restraints means I'll post later today or tomorrow.
Regards
Wren
Nice work. You should post more often, because I like your writings and statements.
A good and interesting piece. But I have a few questions:
Do you think, that given the increased future capabilities in the Royal Navy, and a possible Conservative government focusing more on defence, that the UK would be able to do that on its own? As you mentioned, it has the SBA's and BIOT - and it also has a garrison in Brunei. Could that be utilised in any way?
Secondly, if European integration does take place to such an extent of a unified military, that it would be able to supercede China or any other major maritime powers mentioned?
And lastly, on the subject of a hypothetical federal state, how would you overcome the language barrier? Would the primary language be English, German or French?
Dear Anonymous: Thanks for leaving a comment (whoever you may be). To answer your questions:
(1) I haven’t seen a great deal from the Opposition about defence, other than a few platitudes. I fear that Conservative defence policy would be to simply sit under the wings of the U.S., similarly to several other European countries. As it stands, I really don’t think that the Royal Navy has the means to do a great deal autonomously. So many warships and logistical support vessels have been scrapped since the Cold War era, that Britain probably does not have enough to mount a significant overseas operation on its own. Even with the new aircraft carriers, Britain’s power projection will be limited beyond the Mediterranean Sea and either the Atlantic or Indian Oceans. And Britain’s military bases—other than Cyprus and the Falklands—are very small and have currently only a small number of permanently garrisoned troops. Diego Garcia, for example, has no more than about 60. Of course, these could be bolstered when necessary.
It has more to do with political will. I simply do not think that British leaders, of any political colour, have the will or confidence to use military power in a proactive way any more, unless part of a wider coalition. Of course, this may change if the world turns uglier over the coming years. But it still makes sense to do it through the E.U., for the simple reason that so much more power and capabilities could potentially be brought to bear.
(2) The aggregated naval power of the E.U. already exceeds every other power in the world bar the United States. It can remain that way if Europeans want it to. But again, that requires forward thinking and political commitment.
(3) The primary language would be (British) English, which is already the case. All E.U. institutions now work primarily in English. And E.U. military operations are also undertaken in English. As more and more people learn English, this situation can only increase. In fact, the E.U. may be the one thing that might safeguard English in the 21st Century, preventing the language from being overwhelmed by American English. Quite amusing really!
Post a Comment