Is Britain still relevant on the world stage?
Peter Hoskin 11:45am
Britain's place in the world is under increasing scrutiny. There's the continuing debate over the Lisbon Treaty; mutterings that the "special relationship" may break down; and questions about the viability of Brownite free trade. And now - in a comment piece for the Independent - Mary Dejevsky notes the lack of major British players on the diplomatic stage:
"It is hard to date the beginning, or the end, of our retreat, but the return of Mark Malloch Brown, then Deputy Secretary General, from the United Nations to join Gordon Brown's "government of all the talents" might be seen as a moment when we pulled up one of the last drawbridges linking us to the outside world. Similarly, the retirement of Sir John, now Lord, Kerr, after serving as Secretary General of the Convention drafting the European Constitutional Treaty.
But the absence of senior Britons from international gatherings is becoming conspicuous. At the Munich security conference last weekend – perhaps Europe's premier defence gathering – it was noted that this was the first time in 40-plus years that no Briton spoke from the platform. What was that about our diplomacy 'punching above its weight'?...
...Most striking, though, is the ascendancy of the French. The European Central Bank, the European bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund are all headed by members of the French technocratic elite. Britons are nowhere to be found at the apex of these organisations, which have at least as much clout as the more hidebound diplomatic and security groupings."
Will having Tony Blair as EU President change this? I suspect not. For starters, Blair is being championed far more by France and Germany, than by the British, for the role. And all signs suggest that it's little more than a figurehead position, from which Blair will be hard-pressed to help Britain influence international affairs. As Dejevsky states, it all presages "a future in which we British will punch well below our weight".



Previous






Chris
February 12th, 2008 12:52pm Report this commentGiven that you appear to use the word "Britain" solely and exclusively to mean the British government, why should an EU president be there to give it more influence? The EU president should be working for the people of Europe, including the people of Britain. Given the towering incompetence of the British government in international affairs (has the foreign office ever been right about anything?) it would be best for the British people if they had no influence whatsoever. At least in the EU we have some chance of being represented by a body which is is protecting our interests, rather than (as the British government does) following its own interest with set of aims which have nothing whatsoever to do with the needs and aspirations of the British people.
salieri
February 12th, 2008 8:04pm Report this commentThe answer to the question is no. 'Britain' (whether or not as Chris defines it) punches consistently below its weight because it has chosen to be weightless. Institutional ignorance of - hence contempt for - both its historical and its cultural legacy dictates the result: standardised mediocrity. Can you even imagine, in this country, something like today's celebrations in Spain of the overthrow of the Napoleonic regime? Only 2½ years ago we had the risible spectacle of the Royal [sic] Navy's bicentennial commemoration of Trafalgar downgraded, on purely political grounds, to a NuLab Euro-fest for fear of upsetting the French. When today's Ministers know nothing of the past, and care for it even less, is it any wonder that the very notion of Britishness is an international byword for semi-educated self-doubt? Britain's position in Europe - profoundly shallow - would be perfectly symbolised by a President Blair: vacuous, verbless but inoffensive soundbites - and an electric guitar.
dexey
February 12th, 2008 9:34pm Report this commentWhat, exactly, is our weight?
Having nuclear weaponry no longer means much and our current crop of MP's are hardly the big thinkers of our times.
Back to top