Connect with us

Europe

Britain’s efforts to regain lost glory:  possibilities and challenges

Published

on

There was a time when the world said that the sun never set on the British Empire. As history unfolds, we see that the British Empire stretched from north to south, or from east to west. Large countries such as the United States, Australia, India, Canada, or small nations like the Maldives, Cyprus, or Malta were colonized by the Empire. Also, thirty-five million lands were overwhelmed by the British Empire, which means that the empire governed 25 percent of the world’s land. So the British Empire’s vastness was not only its presence but it was also regarded as one of the undisputed components of the then-world order. At the same time, the idea of governing the whole world was once a matter of dignity for the British.

 However, in the fallout of World War II, much of that glory was lost. Because after World War II, when the era of decolonization started, that sun of the empire became very stagnant. And in the post-Brexit period, many assumed that British glory had vanished forever. Because in the post-Brexit era, Britain is going through an economic crisis. EU members are also imposing an unannounced “blockade” on Britain for political, commercial, and technological gain. Because of the crisis in the UK, the British themselves are skeptical of the resurgence of their lost glory.

 Notwithstanding, amid so many crises, Britain’s recent political strategy sounds a bit hopeful. Because in the current global political circumstances, Britain is trying to turn around again. The presence of the UK on several recent political issues gives some indication of the resurgence of Britain. Many analysts have already called it the beginning of the end of Britain by demonstrating such indications.

First, we can mention Britain’s role in the current Ukraine crisis. For a couple of months, Putin has been intimidating Ukraine to capture, and unfortunately, he has demonstrated his real face by employing a large-scale operation in Ukraine on Feb. 24. However, the UK has been providing arms, technology, and training assistance to the Ukrainian army in response to the recent threat of an invasion by Russia. It’s not a new matter for Britain to proliferate its helping hands towards Ukraine. Because in 1994, Britain signed a memorandum whereby Britain pledged to honor Ukraine’s autonomy and sovereign integrity. Again, Britain desires to illustrate its capabilities and willingness to stand behind its allies. Similarly, the UK has got a shot to broaden its strategic links with East European nations by bolstering Ukraine.

 Furthermore, the UK has been aiming to be a crucial escort to counter “global” menaces like China. The UK’s presence in the AUKUS deal is an instance of it. In 2021, Britain and America declared they would supply all the necessary elements to Australia for generating nuclear-based submarines. The main aim of that deal is to curtail Chinese aggression in the Asia-Pacific region. Like the USA, the UK also ponders a threat to global security. That’s why Boris-led Britain is boldly participating in ending the Chinese dragon in the Asia-Pacific region. Also, through the submarine deal, the UK seeks a huge benefit from it by strengthening strategic interests in this region. Britain is often pursuing a vital role in great power politics by appalling China.

 Similarly, the UK isn’t only confronted externally but also internally. We can illustrate this with Britain’s ban on Huawei’s 5G program in the UK, which occurred in 2020. After getting such solid evidence from MI5, MI6, and American intelligence, Boris Johnson deterred Huawei’s 5G plan in the UK. They had a fear that China might snatch Britons’ information. That’s why Boris imposed sanctions on Huawei to prevent cyber security threats from Chinese state-controlled companies. Therefore, on the China issue, the Boris administration is following a conservative policy.

 Additionally, the UK is endeavoring to enhance its military capacity by innovating new offensive weapons and technologies. In 2020, Boris announced £16 billion in military expenditure, which is the biggest military spending in the post-Cold War era. By expending such an amount of money, Britain seeks to confront possible security challenges from Russia, Iran, and China.

 Moreover, the role of Britain amid the pandemic situation is commendable. In particular, Oxford-AstraZeneca invented vaccines that have been applied all around the world. Recent UK-based Jet Laboratory research has made a massive breakthrough in nuclear fusion research. So it’s certain that the UK is capitalizing on research and development projects. Along with America and Europe, the UK is investing in several scientific projects, such as technological progress, digital taxation, quantum research, etc. 

Most importantly, Boris’s administration is striving to carry out its “Global Britain” program beyond the EU region. It’s seen as the British government’s conception of Britain’s widespread role in global politics over the next decade. The mega plan includes foreign policy, security, trade, business, defense, research & development, and other aspects where the UK will contribute. In this case, the UK is negotiating with its crucial allies like the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and other Commonwealth nations.

However, Britain’s ambition to emerge as a crucial global power won’t be so easy for it at all. because the reality remains so tough for this nation. We can illustrate this with Britain’s economy as an example. Since the Brexit situation, the British pound’s rate has been declining. Its GDP has fallen by around 3% since then. The UK-EU trade percentage has also plunged by around 15%. Amid this crisis, Britain is still persuading the EU to proliferate its helping hands. The UK is often bargaining with the EU in several sectors, including the Northern Ireland border issue.

Besides, the UK’s recent evacuation plan from Afghanistan has been glimpsed as a strategic defeat for the UK and the rest of the Western allies. Since the beginning of the Afghan mission, Britain has expensed around 40 billion pounds to “modernize” and “democratize” the Afghans. But the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban last year made Britain realize that all its efforts were in vain.

Additionally, a possible geopolitical & geo-economical shift is about to happen in the world. In particular, the uprising of China and Russia has appeared a threat to the Western world. The question now is how Britain will adapt to this new shift in world politics or whether Britain has that potential at all.

Similarly, the UK has to deal with several transnational confrontations like finance, trade, global pandemic, climate change, counter-terrorism, etc. In the upcoming days, these issues will take a huge test for Britain.

In conclusion, to bring back its lost glory, the queen’s soldiers have to combat such drawbacks one by one. But, indeed, the United Kingdom may not have the capacity that China, Russia, or the United States have. Yet Britain can only hope to regain its lost glory if it does what it can. And if that is possible, it is hoped that Britain will re-emerge as an important player in the premier league of global politics.

Ashiq Iqbal Jishad is pursuing undergraduate education from the Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka. He's pursuing a scholar internship at Modern Diplomacy. His research interests include security & defense, migration, transatlantic relations, Eurasian issues, European Union, and NATO affairs.

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

On international relations, the public is clueless, democracy fails

Published

on

Nothing is more important to the people in any nation than international relations, because that includes national security, peace and war, and also includes the nation’s economy, which depends heavily on foreign trade. 

Take, for example, the big issue in Finland and Sweden, the decision whether or not to join America’s NATO anti-Russian military alliance. To join that alliance would cause Russia to target the country as being an enemy nation if there is to be a war between America and Russia — which now seems increasingly likely. These nations weren’t targeted by Russia in the past (neither Finland nor Sweden is), because they weren’t Russia’s enemies in post-WW-II times. So: joining NATO would create an enormous and entirely new national-security threat to the people there. But, apparently, they either don’t know this; or, if they do, then they don’t think it’s important; and, so, it doesn’t affect their opinions on whether or not to join NATO — which their leaders are now determined to do. Apparently, Finns and Swedes are being led into this monumental decision on the basis of ignorance, if not of inattention, to the issue of the potentially grave threat to their national-security that might be entailed by their joining NATO. 

To judge from what is being reported in the press, public opinion on the matter, in both countries, ignores the issue of whether being targeted as an enemy, by Russia, even factors, at all, in their opinions, on whether or not their country ought to join.

Turkey’s AA News agency headlined, on May 23rd, “Swedish public … have mixed thoughts about country’s NATO membership bid”. None of the respondents volunteered that concern (about whether becoming an enemy of Russia might reduce, instead of increase, their nation’s safety and security) when asked “how they feel about the sudden urge of their country to become a NATO member.” The closest answer which was volunteered to that was “if you poke the Russian bear too much, it might react because Putin has totally no regard for any laws of war”; but no preference, one way or the other, was cited from that individual.

Alleged experts on the subject were similarly ignoring the issue. On May 13th, France 24 News bannered “In Sweden, misgivings over rushed debate to join NATO”, and reported that, 

“It’s not Sweden deciding the timeline, it’s Finland, because they share a 1,300-km border with Russia”, said Anders Lindberg, political editorialist at Aftonbladet, an independent social democratic daily.

Sweden is otherwise more accustomed to lengthy government-commissioned inquiries on major issues, aimed at fostering debate and building consensus so that decisions are broadly anchored in society.

In contrast, a security review on the pros and cons of NATO membership prepared by the parties in parliament was pulled together in just a few weeks.

The rapid U-turn is also remarkable given that the country “has built its identity on its neutrality and military non-alignment,” Lindberg added.

Support for NATO membership has soared in both Finland and Sweden since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

But while a record 76 percent of Finns are in favour of joining NATO, Swedish public opinion is more divided, with recent polls indicating that between 50 and 60 percent back the idea.

On April 20th, Reuters headlined “Growing majority of Swedes back joining NATO, opinion poll shows”, and reported 

 A growing majority of Swedes are in favour of joining NATO, a poll showed on Wednesday, as policy-makers in both Sweden and Finland weigh up whether Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should lead to an end to decades of military neutrality.

The poll by Demoskop and commissioned by the Aftonbladet newspaper showed 57% of Swedes now favoured NATO membership, up from 51% in March. Those opposed to joining fell to 21% from 24%, while those who were undecided dipped to 22% from 25%.

The March poll was the first to show a majority of Swedes in favour of joining NATO.

Sweden has not been at war since the time of Napoleon and has built its security policy on “non-participation in military alliances”.

But like Finland, the invasion of Ukraine, which Moscow calls a “special military operation”, has forced a radical rethink. Both countries are now seen as highly likely to join the 30-nation alliance.

The article didn’t even mention the issue of whether becoming targeted by Russia’s missiles might possibly endanger Swedes far more than protect them by NATO.

On March 23rd, Business Insider headlined “Finland’s people now strongly back joining NATO, poll says, a massive political shift that would enrage Russia”, and reported: “A survey of people in Finland found that a majority wanted the country to join NATO after Russia invaded Ukraine. The survey by the Finnish Business and Policy Forum Eva think tank found that 60% of people supported Finland joining NATO, a massive jump from previous years.” It closed:

Ilkka Haavisto, the research manager at Eva, said of the results: “Russia has shown that it does not respect the integrity of its neighbors. “The war in Ukraine has concretely shown what the horrors of a defensive war on Finland’s own territory would be and made it clear that NATO countries cannot use their military forces to help defend a nonaligned country.”

No mention was made that joining NATO would cause Finns to become targets of Russia’s missiles, perhaps even of nuclear missiles. 

On May 9th, The Defense Post bannered “Overwhelming Support for NATO Bid Among Finns: Poll”, and reported “Around 76 percent of Finns now want the country to join NATO, up from 60 percent in March, according to the poll commissioned by broadcaster YLE and conducted by research firm Taloustutkimus.” The same day, YLE headlined “Yle poll: Support for Nato membership soars to 76%”, and reported that, “Backing for membership in Yle polls has grown from 53 percent in February to 62 percent in March and 76 percent in May. Before the Russian attack on Ukraine, a majority of Finns had long opposed membership.” No mention was made there, either, regarding Finns’ possible thoughts on whether becoming targeted by Russia as being an enemy-nation might possibly create massive new danger for Finns, vastly more than any possible increase in Finland’s national security might result from joining Russia’s enemies.

Also, none of the alleged news-reports mentioned that, when Russia, on February 24th, invaded Ukraine, it was the result of a war which actually had started eight years ago in February 2014, when the U.S. perpetrated a bloody coup disguised as a ‘revolution’, that replaced Ukraine’s neutralist government, by a rabidly anti-Russian government, which then promptly started a civil war against Russian-speaking Ukrainians, especially in Ukraine’s far east and south. Neither Sweden nor Finland is in anything like that situation regarding Russia — at least not yet.

How can democracy work if the public are in the dark, and are being kept in the dark? And are satisfied to remain in the dark? When their government is taking them to war? Maybe even rushing them into a war? Maybe into WW III? Is this really democracy? Who profits from whatever it is? If this is true in Finland and Sweden, then is it true in every country? Is there any way to change it — to produce a democracy that cannot be manipulated so that it is functioning against the most important interests not only of foreign publics, but of its own public? Does anybody even discuss these problems? Why not?

Continue Reading

Europe

Is European humanity skin deep?

Published

on

At the border crossing between Ukraine and Moldova at Palanca, refugees stand in line. © UNICEF/Vincent Tremeau

When talking about security the most common line of thought tends to be war and the actors involved in the attack, however, all the people who had regular lives within those territories that are jeopardized are as important. With the increasing tensions and armed conflicts happening within the Twenty First Century, the movement of people searching for shelter has increased. More asylum seekers leave their home countries every single day and contemporary politics is still struggling to find a way to catch up. Europe, history wise, is the zone of the world that deals with more refugees wanting to enter the continent due to different factors: geography, proximity, democratic systems, level of development and more. Nevertheless, with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, true sentiments towards refugees are now being put on display.

Even though all refugees are fleeing their countries because their lives are in mortal danger, authorities and government officials do not seem to care. Processes to apply for the refugee status are getting harder and harder. In Europe, to apply for a refugee passport, people are asked for identifications, online questionaries and many other unrealistic aspects that if not answered correctly, the whole process is cancelled. It is ridiculous to believe that when people are scaping in order to stay alive, they will take under consideration all these requirements to receive help, sometimes even from neighboring countries. Which inevitably leads to the following question: why are refugees accepted based on the legality of their applications and not of their status?

By 2016, nearly 5.2 million refugees reached European shores, which caused the so called refugee crisis. They came mainly from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq: countries torn apart by armed conflicts. Similarly, with Russia’s invasion over the Ukraine in 2022, only few days deep within the fighting,  874,000 people had to flee their homes. Nonetheless, the issue seems to be that, for Europe, not all refugees are the same. When the refugee crisis in 2015 was declared, the European Union called for stopping and detaining all arriving refugees for around 18 months. There was a strong reluctancy from Europeans towards offering them shelter. On the contrary, countries such as Poland and Slovakia have said that Ukrainian refugees fleeing will be accepted without passports, or any valid travel documents due to the urgency of the situation. Therefore, stating with their actions, that Ukrainian refugees are more valuable or seem to be more worthy of help than refugees from Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.

Correspondingly, it is true that not all countries inside Europe deal and act the same way towards refugees, be that as it may, with the current refugee crisis it has been proved that they all share strong sentiments of xenophobia and racism. For instance, Hungary is a country that refused to admit refugees coming from outside Europe since 2015. In 2018, Prime Minister Viktor Orban described non-European refugees as “Muslim invaders” and “poison” to society, in comparison with Ukrainian refugees who are being welcomed without hesitation. In the same way, Jarosław Kaczyński, who served as Prime Minister of Poland and is the leader of the Law and Justice party, in 2017 said that accepting asylum seekers from Syria would be dangerous and would “completely change our culture and radically lower the level of safety in our country”. Furthermore, Germany in 2015 with Chancellor Angela Merkel in charged said that they would accept one million of Syrians. Although, as time passed, Europe’s solution was to make a deal with Turkey, who is not part of the European Union, to close the migrant route. Moreover, the promise of letting refugees integrate into German society was not fulfilled since. Seven year later, an impressive amount of refugees are still in camps and centers, with their lives frozen in time. Sadly, most European governments gambled towards the idea of sending them back once the armed conflict was over, without caring for the aftermath of war’s destruction.

The common narrative until now pushed by leaders, politicians, and mass media has been that Ukrainians are prosperous, civilized, middle class working people, but refugees coming from the Middle East are terrorists, and refuges from Africa are simply too different. Despite, refugees are all people who share similar emotions and struggle to grasp the fact that their lives may never be the same; having lost their homes, friends, family and so much more. Plus, being selectively welcomed based on their religion, skin color or nationality by the continent which’s complete rhetoric is universal rights, just adds another complex layer to the issue. Conjointly, the displacement of people due to war displays how regular individuals are always the ones who suffer the most in consequence to the interests of the few that represent larger powers. Hence, greed, envy, and cruelty are stronger than recognized, even in a developed continent such as Europe.

Continue Reading

Europe

What Everyone Should Know About Preventing Ethnic Violence: The Case of Bosnia

Published

on

Image source: srebrenica.org.uk

When the Balkans spiraled into violence and genocide in the 90’s, many wondered what caused this resurgence in militant ethnic nationalism and how a similar situation may be countered.

***

The 1990’s were a vibrant decade, that is unless you were living in the Balkans. 1995 was especially bad, as the 11th of July of that year marked the Srebrenica Massacre, which saw Serbian soldiers murder over 8,000 Bosnian Muslims over the span of two weeks. This shocked the world, as it was the first case of a European country resorting to extreme violence and genocide on ethnic lines since World War II. After World War II, the idea that a European country would resort to genocide was unthinkable. As Balkan nations continue to see the consequences of the massacre after over 25 years, it is increasingly evident that more needs to be done to curb ethnic violence.

We must first investigate key causes of ethnic violence. According to V.P. Gagnon, the main driver of ethnic violence is elites that wish to stay in power. Ethnic nationalism is easy to exploit, as creating a scapegoat is extremely effective for keeping elites in power. This is exactly what happened in Yugoslavia, which had previously seen high levels of tolerance and intermarriage in more mixed areas that saw the worst violence during the war. Stuart J. Kaufman argues that elites may take advantage of natural psychological fears of in-group extinction, creating group myths, or stereotypes, of outgroups to fuel hatred against them. While they may take different approaches to this issue, Gagnon and Kaufman agree that the main drivers of ethnic violence are the elites.

David Lake and Donald Rothchild suggest that the main driver of ethnic conflict is collective fears for the future of in-groups. Fear is one of the most important emotions we have because it helps secure our existence in a hostile world. However, fear can easily be exploited by the elites to achieve their personal goals. In a multiethnic society such as Yugoslavia, the rise of an elite that adheres to the prospects of a single ethnic group could prove dangerous and sometimes even disastrous. The destruction of Yugoslavian hegemony under Josip Broz Tito and the resulting explosion of ethnic conflict at the hands of Serbian elites in Bosnia underline this because of the immense fear this created.

Regions with high Serb populations in Bosnia sought independence from the rest of the country when they found themselves separated from Serbia by the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Republika Srpska was formed by these alienated Serbs. The leadership and elites in Serbia riled up the Serb population of Republika Srpska by stereotyping and demonizing Bosnian Muslims as “descendants of the Turkish oppressors”. This scared the Serbs in Bosnia so much so that they obeyed the elites of Serbia in supporting and fighting for the independence of Republika Srpska by any means necessary. As was seen in Srebrenica, they were not opposed to genocide.

We know how the elites fuel ethnic tensions to secure power as well of the devastating effects of these tensions reaching their boiling point. But what could be done to address ethnic conflict? David Welsh suggests that a remedy for ethnic conflict could be the complete enfranchisement of ethnic minorities and deterrence towards ethnic cleansing. This means that we must ensure that ethnic minorities are able to have a say in a democratic system that caters to all ethnicities equally. Fostering aversion to genocide is also vital toward addressing ethnic conflict because it is the inevitable result of unchecked ethnic conflict.

There is also the issue of members of ethnic groups voting for candidates and parties on ethnic lines. For example, in the United States, White American voters have shown to prefer White candidates over African American candidates, and vice versa. Keep in mind that the United States has a deep history of ethnic conflict, including the centuries-long subjugation of African Americans by White Americans.

Ethnic violence is horrifying and destructive, but it can be prevented. The first measure would be the establishment of a representative democracy, where members of all ethnicities are accurately represented. Another measure would be to make ethnic conflict and ethnic stereotyping taboo so that the average person would not resort to genocidal behavior once things go wrong. Lastly, making people feel secure is the most important step towards preventing ethnic conflict. If the people feel secure enough, they will not even need to think about ethnic violence. In short, while it is important to consider the differences of the various ethnic groups in a multiethnic society, it is vital that each group is kept represented and secure, free of any fears of subjugation.

While the case of Bosnia was extremely unfortunate, it provides an integral view into what could happen if perceived subjugation and fear of eradication reaches a breaking point. As was seen in Bosnia, ethnic violence can be extremely violent, resulting in untold suffering and death. That is why we must take necessary steps towards de-escalation and remediation of ethnic conflicts. These measures can, quite literally, save millions of lives.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending