By Conrad Black
Monday, September 09, 2019
Americans watching the spectacle currently unfolding in
the British government should not be fearful that the entire British political
system is cracking up. It isn’t. The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland) has been contemplating its national strategic direction since
World War II. Britain has been a Great Power since the emergence of the
nation-state in the 16th century, along with the French, Spanish, and Turks. The
general strategic division of Europe from the defeat of the Spanish Armada in
1588 on was that France had the greatest army in Europe and Britain the
greatest navy, and as it was an island, had little need for an army. It mainly
engaged mercenaries to be its entry in topping up one side or another in the
balance of power of continental nations and in some overseas activities. This
is why there were Hessians in America fighting George Washington. Britain took
what it wanted in the world, especially North America and India, where they
evicted France; South Africa, where they evicted the Dutch; and Australasia.
And Britain took a series of maritime transit points of great strategic value
in maintaining its empire: Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Singapore, Hong Kong, and
Cape Town, in particular.
This system continued through the First World War,
although Germany, unified at last by Bismarck in 1871, succeeded France as the
greatest land power in Europe, and Britain and France had to fight side by side
to contain Germany in the First World War, with American assistance needed to
defeat it, and Britain, America, and the Russians were all required to subdue
Germany in the Second World War. So great were the British exertions in these
wars, and so energetic had national sentiment in their former colonial empire
become, that Britain ceased to be one of the world’s greatest powers. Russia
replaced Germany as the greatest power in Europe and the U.K. became the
principal American ally in denying hegemony in Europe to the Russians. Britain
managed the descent to the second rank of the world’s states with more dignity
than any other country that has ever had to meet this challenge, because of the
magnificent Churchillian contribution to victory over Nazism and despite a few
unfortunate slips such as the disorderly end of the British Indian Empire and
the Palestine Mandate in 1947 and 1948, and the Suez fiasco in 1956, which
tainted Anglo–American relations for several years.
About 60 years ago, Dean G. Acheson, who had been President
Truman’s able secretary of state, said, “Great Britain has lost an empire and
has not yet found a role.” That is the process that is reaching a decisive
climax in London in the next two months. After Suez, the British tagged along
with the Americans: Harold Macmillan with Eisenhower and Kennedy, to the point
of not assisting France in becoming a nuclear power while Kennedy was trying to
draw European military forces entirely into NATO and under U.S. command. (This
was one of the reasons why French president de Gaulle vetoed Britain’s entry
into the European Common Market, as it then was.) Harold Wilson got on well
with Lyndon Johnson, a period when the U.S. was very much distracted by Asia,
and the next prime minister, Edward Heath, put Britain’s Commonwealth allies,
especially Canada and Australia, over the side and plunged into Europe in 1973.
Its membership was confirmed by 67 percent of voters in a referendum in 1975,
but that was essentially an economic union and not a political one.
Margaret Thatcher came to office in 1979 and approved of
the Common Market (though she renegotiated the terms of Britain’s membership)
but returned to intimate cooperation with the United States in working with
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to end the Cold War. The complete collapse of
the Soviet Union and of international Communism was a largely unforeseen bonus.
As the Grand Alliance of Churchill and Roosevelt, revived as the special
relationship between Thatcher and Reagan, was no longer necessary for pursuit
of the common western interest against an adversarial superpower, Britain under
Tony Blair hurled itself holus bolus back into Europe and signed on to the goal
of an “ever closer Union” in Europe.
There was always a very audible level of misgiving in
Britain about where the European project was going. In general, a broad swath
of opinion was not for scrapping or subordinating the political institutions
that Britain had elaborated over many centuries in favor of new and untested
European institutions, and did not wish to have its relations with the United
States and the senior members of the Commonwealth subsumed into the much less
cooperative and comfortable relationship the major continental powers,
particularly France and Germany, had with the United States, Canada, and
Australia.
This tension between connecting to Europe or to the
transoceanic world has been a factor in British government and foreign policy
for centuries. When Charles I married the sister of the French king Louis XIII,
and Louis XIV gave refuge to the future kings Charles II and James II, there
was great solidarity with France. When the Dutch prince of Orange became
Britain’s King William III, there was a close rapport with the Netherlands and
against the French, and when the Hanoverian royal family became the heirs to
the British throne (Kings George I, II, III, and IV), many considered that
there was excessive British attention to German affairs. Britain has often been
of Europe but has never really been in it, and it has much more in common with
the other largely Anglo-Saxon and English-speaking democracies than with the
continental powers.
The current absurd state of affairs arose when former
prime minister David Cameron (2010–2016) promised a referendum on staying in
Europe or leaving, certain that there could not be a vote to leave, but there
was, 52 to 48 percent, in 2016. Cameron had to resign and was replaced by
Theresa May, who claimed to be leaving when she was really advocating an
arrangement of remaining in Europe with some modifications. She never indicated
there was any chance of leaving without any departing arrangements, so Brussels
made minimal concessions on behalf of the EU. Mrs. May’s proposed deal, which
would have been approved if Cameron had taken the trouble to negotiate it, was
rejected by Parliament three times, all after she called an unnecessary
election and lost her majority. Theresa May finally had no support left and
retired earlier this year, and former London mayor Boris Johnson was chosen by
the Conservative party to replace her. He has said he will try to negotiate a
satisfactory arrangement with Brussels, but that he will leave without a
compromise departure arrangement if he can’t reach an acceptable one, and that
he will not seek another extension of the departure date, which was supposed to
occur last March. A bloc of 21 of his M.P.’s defected on the issue of possibly
leaving without a negotiated agreement after Johnson secured Queen Elizabeth’s
agreement to prorogue (suspend) Parliament from next week to mid-October, just
two weeks before the October 31 departure date.
The Conservative rebels have joined with the five
opposition parties (one Scottish and two Northern Irish parties and the Labour
and Liberal Democratic parties) to deny the government’s move to dissolve
Parliament for new elections. They are going to legislate a requirement that
there not be a “no-deal Brexit,” as “crashing out of Europe” is called. Thus
the opposition groups who could not agree on much else, will try to dictate and
adopt legislation without attempting to remove the government. This is now the
most absurd depth British parliamentary government has plumbed since the
English Civil War in the mid-17th century. It is fatuous for the opposition
parties to try to govern legislatively without control of any of the
ministries, and as soon as there is what amounts to an expression of
non-confidence in the government, which all but technically has already
occurred, Johnson should be able successfully to request a writ of dissolution
and of new elections from the venerable Queen Elizabeth II (Johnson is her 14th
prime minister in her 67 years as queen).
I predict that the Johnson government will make an
electoral arrangement with the Brexit party of Nigel Farage and will win a
landslide victory against the fragmented opposition, a mélange of mountebanks,
Marxists, and regional autonomists and separatists. The point of all this for
the United States is that Britain will shift the balance of power in the world
by a rapprochement with America after departing Europe, which was always
conceived as a somewhat anti-American enterprise, in which the United States
would be dispensed with when it was no longer needed to liberate it from the
Nazis or protect it from the Soviets, and the European countries as a group
would resume the role of world leadership the European Great powers had played
prior to World War I. Britain is the world’s fifth economy and one of its very
most respected nationalities, and historically probably the world’s most
influential country, and in opting for a closer association with North America
and a loosened connection to continental Europe, there will be the most
significant strategic adjustment in the world since the disintegration of the
Soviet Union nearly 30 years ago.
As for Britain itself, its principal media outlets, the
BBC and the Economist, Financial Times, Telegraph, Guardian,
and Times of London, have rarely ceased for long in reviling the Trump
administration, along with all his Republican and half of his Democratic
predecessors since Roosevelt, and mocking the garishness of the American system
generally. This unspeakable display of incompetence and dysfunctional hypocrisy
should confer upon the British commentariat a trace of well-earned
humility. Cromwell’s dismissal of
Parliament 370 years ago leaps to mind: “You came here to address the nation’s
grievances and you are now its greatest grievance. In God’s name, go!” They
shall go to the people, and, happily, many will not come back.
No comments:
Post a Comment