An interesting article by a commentator at The Guardian. An abridged version is below .Britain is not a totalitarian state. It has regular elections and free speech, and its citizens have the freedom to organise politically. So how is it that such a democratic deficit exists when it comes to the country's role in the world? In February 2003, more than 90% of Britons opposed Tony Blair's government joining the invasion of Iraq in the absence of a second UN resolution. Yet , as we know, the invasion went ahead the following month without such a resolution being passed.
The de facto purpose of Britain's foreign policy has traditionally been to advance the interests of various concentrations of social and economic power, not to reflect the will of the voting public. Above all, it is the commercial interests of those best placed to influence the government that tend to be prioritised by policymakers. This in turn is why Britain has supported the US-led maintenance of a global system seen as amenable to those commercial interests, and tried to maximise Britain's influence within that system.
While we think of globalisation as a recent phenomenon, its roots go back to the imperial age of the 19th century.Then, Britain presided not merely over an empire but over a global trading system, lubricated by credit from London's banks, underwritten by its insurers, and imposed on weaker nations by military force.The devastation wrought by the calamitous years of 1914-1945 dealt a fatal blow to the country's capacity to perform this global management role. The task was inherited by the US, whose view of how the world should be organised economically and politically was broadly consistent with that of British elites.London therefore sought to protect its economic power and international status by placing itself close to Washington.
"We want you to get up the arse of the White House and stay there" was the instruction , Britain's ambassador to the USA , Christopher Meyer says he received from Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.
Anthony Sampson noted in his recent study of power in modern Britain, Who Runs This Place?, "many British embassies now include temporary 'secondees' from big corporations, including BP, Shell, banks and construction companies, who pay their salaries".
The de facto purpose of Britain's foreign policy has traditionally been to advance the interests of various concentrations of social and economic power, not to reflect the will of the voting public. Above all, it is the commercial interests of those best placed to influence the government that tend to be prioritised by policymakers. This in turn is why Britain has supported the US-led maintenance of a global system seen as amenable to those commercial interests, and tried to maximise Britain's influence within that system.
While we think of globalisation as a recent phenomenon, its roots go back to the imperial age of the 19th century.Then, Britain presided not merely over an empire but over a global trading system, lubricated by credit from London's banks, underwritten by its insurers, and imposed on weaker nations by military force.The devastation wrought by the calamitous years of 1914-1945 dealt a fatal blow to the country's capacity to perform this global management role. The task was inherited by the US, whose view of how the world should be organised economically and politically was broadly consistent with that of British elites.London therefore sought to protect its economic power and international status by placing itself close to Washington.
"We want you to get up the arse of the White House and stay there" was the instruction , Britain's ambassador to the USA , Christopher Meyer says he received from Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.
Anthony Sampson noted in his recent study of power in modern Britain, Who Runs This Place?, "many British embassies now include temporary 'secondees' from big corporations, including BP, Shell, banks and construction companies, who pay their salaries".
SOYMB has argued that under capitalism where a democratic principle conflicts with "vital interests" i.e commercial interests , it’s the democratic principle that is ditched. The foreign policies of capitalist states aren't , and cannot be, based on “ethical” considerations. It is based on what is called “Realpolitik”. The UN Charter is just a scrap of paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment