|
BRITAIN AND THE WORLD |
“Foreign Policy” in the sense of interfering in other countries' affairs is something we don't need. We no longer rule the world. America does that for the moment, and how they choose to use their power is up to them. Our Foreign Policy, such as it is, should be simple:
Britain should neither rule, nor be ruled.
We need to adopt a policy of Zero Interference in the affairs of other nations. Each nation and region must work out its own destiny. When we attempt to interfere, our own people get killed, and we get no thanks for it. Indeed it is likely to attract acts of terrorism against our own people within our own borders.
We should also realize that when a government decides to intervene in foreign countries it is sending its hardy sons and daughters into extreme danger with the strong possibility that many will be wounded or killed. No government should have the right to do that, nor to lay the huge costs of such operations upon their taxpayers, most of whom will probably oppose such military expeditions anyway. The proper role for a nation's military is to defend its own borders from clear, present and immediate danger.
We should be looking at a small, elite force which can mobilize in cases of natural disasters, and in extreme conditions with UN Agreement, intervene on humanitarian grounds.
Britain should not renew, and should progressively disarm itself of, all nuclear weapons. If the world decides collectively that it wishes to spare its children the horrors of nuclear destruction, the proper course is (1) to obtain agreement that those nations not having nuclear capability should not seek to develop it, and (2) that those countries having nuclear weapons should progressively and publicly eliminate them over a specified period. To forbid non-nuclear nations from “joining the club” while others retain nuclear capability is clearly an unequal agreement which none need feel compelled to respect. Notwithstanding the course other nations may choose, Britain should adopt its own course in rendering itself nuclear-free.
We should also progressively run down our own armaments industry. To say that we are losing valued export orders and that other manufacturers will step in anyway is not the main point. When guns are fired and bombs are exploded, and people are wounded or killed, the guilt must be shared equally between those who pull the trigger, and those who make the weapons. Our world seems to be continuously at war. Infrastructure and buildings are destroyed, people are wounded and killed. When homes and hospitals, roads and bridges are destroyed, when a bullet is pulled from a child's leg, can we truly feel pride that the bombs and bullets were “Made in Britain”?
As a further element of Foreign Policy we should also eliminate or drastically reduce the diplomatic corps. It costs millions, and the international diplomatic community largely occupies itself with mutual parties and receptions. When foreign embassies and consulates began a couple of centuries ago things were very different. Communications could take several weeks to reach London from the outposts of the Empire. Foreign intriguing was rampant as major countries vied with one another for world influence, and their governments needed representatives “on the spot” who were thoroughly conversant with their governments' intents and policies, and could act on their own initiative. That is why they were and are called “Ministers Plenipotentiary” – a word derived from the Latin Plenus and Potens – literally “full of power”. Today, when significant negotiations are called for, a posse of emissaries can be jetted across the world in a matter of hours, while in the meantime, hotlines and live video hookups can set the groundwork. When institutions become life-expired or their functions irrelevant, they need to be seriously reviewed.
It frequently happens, after a suitable time has elapsed, that historical events, previously little known or even taboo, become openly discussed, and often, an apology or at least an expression of regret is made for historical events which in retrospect we would now consider to have been inappropriate. The sins of the fathers do indeed have repercussions upon the sons, and Britain must accept a large measure of responsibility for the current turmoil in the Middle East.
When Turkey entered the First World War on the side of Germany, Colonel Lawrence persuaded the Arab tribes to join Britain in fighting the Turks, thus drawing their fire and effectively keeping them out of the main theatre of war. The Middle East had for some six centuries been under the Ottoman Empire. What Colonel Lawrence promised the Arabs, with the implied backing of the British Government, was self-determination and independence. Though contemporary correspondence and documentation was often conflicting in detail and interpretation, the overall thrust of Arab and Regional independence was clearly understood both by Lawrence and the Arab leaders who on that understanding fought beside him and under his command.
Meanwhile and in practice, Britain and France were already assuming sovereignty over the Middle East and dividing it up between themselves. The impoliteness and scorn to which the Arab Delegation was treated at the Versailles peace conference in 1919 and the Cairo conference in 1921 was an added insult to a people for whom politeness and hospitality are paramount in their culture. Subsequent acts of aggressive British colonialism continued until after WW2, when America took over the implied role of world leadership. For America's role we can say nothing. But a “statement of regret” by Britain for past deception, and an assurance, backed by clear and decisive action, of no further interference in Middle Eastern affairs could go some way towards creating an atmosphere of peace between Britain and the Middle Eastern Arab nations and peoples. We might also find ourselves less of a target for terrorism.
Foreign Policy
Britain and the Middle East
Site Map, Articles & Links