Friday, January 29, 2010

The UK's world role: Great Britain's greatness fixation



In some eyes, but most notably its own, the British government will be in the driving seat of world events this week. Today, G7 finance ministers will be in London to discuss inter­national banking reform and the transaction tax, and – in the claim that the City minister, Paul Myners, makes on our comment pages today – the UK will be "leading international efforts". On Wednesday, diplomats from around the world will meet here to discuss the threat to Yemen from al-Qaida. A day later, attention shifts to another international conference in London, this time on the imperilled future of Afghanistan. Quite a week.

Every country likes to be taken seriously around the world. Lots of nations like to feel they are punching their weight, or even above it. Only a few, however, seem to feel the need to promote themselves as the one the others all look to for leadership. It is one thing – though never uncontroversial, and in some contexts increasingly implausible – for the United States to see itself in this role. As the world's largest economic and military power, the US remains even now the necessary nation in international affairs. It is quite another thing for Britain to pretend to such a status.

The continuing pre-eminence of American clout has been starkly shown by what has happened in banking over the last several days. Domestic political pressures spurred President Obama into declaring a war on the money men, and markets worldwide immediately trembled, as they grasped that his plan could unleash a global drive to split retail and investment banking. There should be no shame for London in wholeheartedly welcoming the initiative while admitting that Britain could never have made such a move on its own. Instead, however, the government carries on as if its own detailed plans for banks' living wills, and its distant dreams of a Tobin tax, are framing the debate.

Britain is a very important country. The sixth-largest economy in the world. The fifth-largest military power. Its claim to what the former prime minister Lord Home used to call a seat at the top table is beyond dispute, though it would be a still more influential one if we sometimes ceded it to the European Union. And yet, more than half a century after the loss of empire, our political culture still seems racked by the need to be the leading nation, not just one of them. Such delusions are most associated with the political right, but Gordon Brown can also seem peculiarly ensnared by them. His Britain must always be first, always at the forefront, must always show the way to the rest. Even in the G7, the G8 or the G20 – never mind the UN – a mere share of the action is never enough, and it must always be Britain that is leading the effort, whether in Yemen or Afghanistan. But this way hubris lies. Mr Brown immodestly let slip to MPs in 2008 that he had saved the world. And as he arrived in Copenhagen for the ill-fated climate change summit last month he announced that "There are many outstanding issues which I'm here to resolve."

In reality, of course, no single nation can resolve the world's problems alone. Only the United States and China, separately or together, can even aspire to set the agenda for the rest. If the US raises its commitment to Afghanistan then other nations are likely to follow. If the US penalises the banks, others soon fall into line.

Britain has no such potency. Yet we still struggle to adjust to our reality. We can propose, as we shall be doing in three important London meetings this week, but we cannot dispose. Every day, the descant of the Chilcot inquiry reminds us of where the refusal to recognise this truth can humiliatingly lead. Our national interest should be to play our important role as a true, trusted and committed European partner on the world stage. No longer the greatest. Just one great among others. Good enough ought to be good enough. The people get it. If only the politicians did too.

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • FalseConsciousness FalseConsciousness

    25 Jan 2010, 12:33AM

    The UK does have a world role to play, but only as the main ally of US imperialism. Anyone who thinks Britain can achieve even a modicum of independence from the dictates of Washington is engaging in wishful thinking. The US is determined to maintain's its global hegemony against China and other emerging powers. The global economic collapse also guarantees an increase in interstate conflicts due to rising nationalism, militarism, and the prevalence of trade disputes. The US may be leading mankind to the next world war and Britain has no choice but to follow along.

  • Armchair99 Armchair99

    25 Jan 2010, 12:36AM

    The fifth-largest military power

    Only the US has real power projection. The UK and France form the second division. Everyone else is nowhere. Witness the extreme efforts Russia had to go to put troops just beyond its borders in Georgia - a conflict they no doubt had planned for for some time. China has just reached the stage of having something approaching a blue water navy in the past year.

    though it would be a still more influential one if we sometimes ceded it to the European Union.

    It's really mind numbing how the supposedly intellectual Guardian maintains the shibboleth of EU = Good despite everything. Why? Where's your evidence for this? One example of how the UK's interests have been progressed through EU membership?

    If the Guardian had any intellectual integrity you'd be asking why the EU was - quite literally - not even allowed in the room when Copenhagen was decided. Come on guys and girls, you're the biggest cheer leader for the EU and the polite face of the green-left in the UK. So..

    What's gone wrong? How the did the EU fail what you presented as the most important decision of this generation?

  • Joinupsignin Joinupsignin

    25 Jan 2010, 12:37AM

    Perhaps its time we stopped saving the world and sorted out our own bankrupt, non-democratic country, of coffee shops, over priced railways and Nando's.

    Only that doesn't appeal to our attention seeking Prime Ministers who too often give up on UK policies (if they ever really were interested in them) and instead fall for the easy ride and ego driven world of international relations.

    The thrill of international summits and the end communiqué - re-committing money they promised before, to the latest band wagon, too easily romances our leaders over and above the grim streets of Edlington.

  • tightrope tightrope

    25 Jan 2010, 12:39AM

    I think Europe is great and that if the English could understand that they are Europeans and take their pride in that rather than in the narrower identity then a lot would change.

    Unfortunately, there appears to be little chance currently that the English will come to appreciate what Seamus Heaney called the "dignity of the European identity".

    It is a historical shame.

  • TheotherWay TheotherWay

    25 Jan 2010, 12:42AM

    " In some eyes, but most notably its own, the British government will be in the driving seat of world events this week. Today, G7 finance ministers will be in London to discuss inter national banking reform and the transaction tax, and ? in the claim that the City minister, Paul Myners, makes on our comment pages today ? the UK will be "leading international efforts". On Wednesday, diplomats from around the world will meet here to discuss the threat to Yemen from al-Qaida. A day later, attention shifts to another international conference in London, this time on the imperilled future of Afghanistan. Quite a week."

    Tow questions come to my mind. First and foremost, how much has these conferences got to do with discussing the great matters that need a solution and how much of it is posturing for the election. I suspect the answer is the latter.

    In the past six months or year we have seen great many of these conferences and high sounding communiques. I have not notices any action or discernible real progress. Who are these great and the good kidding?

  • Armchair99 Armchair99

    25 Jan 2010, 12:45AM

    The US is determined to maintain's its global hegemony against China and other emerging powers.

    Both right and left in the US have acted for decades on the basis that increased trade and economic freedoms in china will inevitably result in democratic reform. As these reforms have cnsistently failed to happen we're only now beginning to see that view being seriously reconsidered. The worrying thing is the US has no plan at all with regard to china.

    The global economic collapse also guarantees an increase in interstate conflicts due to rising nationalism, militarism, and the prevalence of trade disputes.

    So not a good time to cut the UK's defence budget from an already historical low of around 2.2% of GDP then?

    The US may be leading mankind to the next world war and Britain has no choice but to follow along.

    Seems likely. The left in the UK is gonna get exactly what it's been waiting for for two generations - the fall of US hegemony.

    Do you think the chinese are gonna be better masters to us, or the africans, or gays or women of the poor?

  • jimfred jimfred

    25 Jan 2010, 12:55AM

    Other countries,(Sweden,Holland,Brazil......etc.etc.),seem to jog along happily without being the' mouse that roared'.
    Why do our politicians have us punching above our weight?

  • Garcie Garcie

    25 Jan 2010, 1:27AM

    Actually this is a New Labour and Brown phenomenon,
    Brown called the forthcoming Afghan conference because opinion polls showed he didn't have a grip on the war. (Which he doesn't).

    Holding a conference and getting the press into a love-in fest is cheaper than buying new helicopters and UAVs.
    The FCO must be running around like headless chickens to organise it. It was news to them....they should be fighting a war.

    What you are actually referring to is the disturbing propensity of the Labour government to use the British armed forces as the armed wing of Amnesty International. To get headlines. It back fired on them.

    This is because they don't believe history is important, and they ignore it. Most Labour MP's wouldn't even know where Afghanistan is.

  • Garcie Garcie

    25 Jan 2010, 1:31AM

    After reading the article again it occurs to me that this leader fixation is a leftist fantasy.

    Once the Chinese start driving their carrier fleets around maybe you'll wish we still could punch above our weight.

    The perfect example is Haiti.

    Where is the Royal Navy.? It has been cut so badly that we cant respond.

    Only countries like the US, Isreal, UK and few European nations care about the Haitians. We should be there.

  • pont pont

    25 Jan 2010, 1:33AM

    Having the word "Great" before the name of your country can lead to delusional behaviour .

    Perhaps the name can be changed ,therefore leading to a less aggressive and unruly attitude.

    Maybe UK/PLC.Corp

    or Nice Britain -or Grizzily Britain !

  • Garcie Garcie

    25 Jan 2010, 1:35AM

    The US is determined to maintain its global hegemony against China and other emerging powers.

    Yeah thank God.

    Strange the lefties don't mind it when football fields full of convicts in China are executed and their organs harvested, because, hey, the Chinese are going to outstrip the US in strategic influence. Woo.

    Disturbing.

    The World will be a crueler place as US and UK influence wains. We are looking at a new dark age.

  • Lancsman Lancsman

    25 Jan 2010, 1:39AM

    I think I have two questions about this editorial, although it is late.

    - Why should Britain not strive to maintain a good seat at the top table when history suggests british political and legal ideas are the best bulwark against the politics of raw power? (and i am not an apologist for the excesses and degradations of empire)

    - Isn't this posturing commonplace, in most countries, and is it really consequential?

    The essence of this article, that Britain should acknowledge its diminished status vs 60 years ago. Of course we shouldn't try to pretend we call the shots globally. But, as the piece points out, Britain is outward looking and important and should always try to remain at the centre of world affairs.

    The idea that we should cede our place at the top table the EU, or anyone else is not sensible. The EU is far from democratic and representative, and it is not some global benign force for good, and neither are its member nations. The fact that it appears less belligerent and right wing than the US and some other powers doesn't make it a great force for justice. The EU's actions on trade vs the third world show it for what it is.

    There are several reasons we should maintain our place at the top table, amongst equals, and not seeking dominate. Our stability as a nation state is unsurpassed over the last 800 years. That period has seen the evolution of political and legal systems that are the world-leading. The UN charter is an evolution of political developments in Britain. In commerce, ideas, justice and equality, Britain has often led the way. This isn't just a consequence of empire and reach, but culture. This culture is nothing to do with innate superiority of people but the happy accidents of history and the confluence of peoples and ideas on these islands.

    The USA may well be regarded by many as having a superior constitution but it is easy to forget that it is still a relatively new country with a dramatically changing demographic and culture, and a place with an electorate of whom many are in thrall to religious and lobby groups. The EU is new and many of its member states were recently dictatorships. India is relatively new in its current guise. China is certainly not going to be man's last best hope of restricting the influence of power and wealth allowing ordinary individuals to flourish in security. So to my mind, progressives should want Britain right at the heart of things. No-one believes any country acts benignly and against its own interests, but I know if I were Burkino Faso, who I'd want at the G8 or whatever it is now.

    The idea that we are alone in our political culture in presenting ourselves as leading the effort for a domestic audience also seems wrong. Most political leaders of most states do that, for obvious reasons.

    The notion of potency is central in international relations and diplomacy. But is it so relevant for domestic political and media posturing? Isn't that where most of this hubris manifests itself? If so, is it really consequential? Strange too that you use the example of banks. I would have thought that that was one are we do have some clout.

  • Lancsman Lancsman

    25 Jan 2010, 1:48AM

    Garcie

    I'm not looking forward to Chinese Carriers and subs are roaming round the place. But I'll be happy when the US ones return to port, especially off of our bases. I'll be even happier when we can talk about the UK without people having to bundle it with the US.

    And given that no-one knows what the world will look like in 25 years, I'd prefer if we had a deterrent that was actually our own.

  • Faversham Faversham

    25 Jan 2010, 1:49AM

    You mean England's embarrassing and highly damaging fixation with its former Imperial status. Us Scots got over the loss of Empire a long time ago and there were plenty of us who, after being on the boot end of it, never gave a fig for it anyway.

  • Lancsman Lancsman

    25 Jan 2010, 1:59AM

    Faversham,

    actually, most Scots wholeheartedly embraced empire and from near bankruptcy and the dissolution of its parliament (albeit under duress), Scotland quickly became an economic miracle and Glasgow was at one point the world's wealthiest city. Scots filled the institutions of empire. I have also heard from more than one Indian that the Scots seemed to embrace the brutality of empire with more gusto than many other colonials.

    Britain may no longer be a great military power (and shouldn't be ashamed of that). Yet the armed forces, when their political masters get it right, can still do the business - Sierra Leone for example.

    But the legacy of empire is a multicultural nation with unrivalled global connections and a hub of a legal system and culture it shares with vast swathes of humanity.

    I'm proud of that not embarrassed. What do you suggest? Board up the windows and not talk to anyone?

  • MynameisEarl MynameisEarl

    25 Jan 2010, 2:27AM

    Weren't successive Thatcher governments built on the premise of rebuilding Britain's image of itself as a world power(eg. the Falklands war) & doesn't the Daily Mail base much of it's demographic based on this concept to this day? If the UK still has issues about the loss of it's empire & not being that important then god knows how Americans are going to come to terms with this.

  • farafield farafield

    25 Jan 2010, 2:33AM

    Be an IMPORTANT EU NATION WHAT A LOAD OF TOSH the EU is undemocractic , corrupt , wasteful , stuffed full of uselees politcains rapidly making themselves rich on expenses, stupid policies such as the CAP and the fisheries policy , unable to defend itself or even resolve civil war in its own backyard without US help, cannot deliver aid with any efficency , and most of its citizens cant even be bothered to vote it only seems to matter to those in pwer or those wanting it. It also costs this country a fortune in contributions which no one questions . We can be of more use to the world and our selves without it . Membership is like being in local club of amateur dramatics with the organizing committee wanting the lime light but no one wanting to organize it or discuss what it is for with the stage crew/audience / media .

  • Scam22 Scam22

    25 Jan 2010, 3:15AM

    If the US penalises the banks, others soon fall into line. Britain has no such potency. Yet we still struggle to adjust to our reality.

    The reason Gordon Brown has been playing the role of world leader since Obama was elected is that Britain is the world's leading financial centre. Obama is owned by the banks, so he is number two to Brown. He was chosen, partly as a result of his absolute cluelessness.

    The banks, despairing of losing their first wholly owned American president have ordered him to say some tough things about bankers. Like healthcare, it will be watered down by the 'opposition'.

    Do not expect Britain to do much more than pretend to copy him.

    Thatcher restored Britain's leading role in the world by her (almost criminal) deregulation of the City of London (Big Bang). It worked extremely well.

  • mikedow mikedow

    25 Jan 2010, 3:22AM

    Currently, I'd say England is tanked out, but when China decides to forclose on the U.S. there is going to be a planet sized fire sale, and there's your chance.

  • AntonyIndia AntonyIndia

    25 Jan 2010, 3:24AM

    The UK has some world influence above its actual share because of it language.
    English became the world's number one language. This echoes on through its education and it media to the corners of the Earth.

    The size of its PM's ego is another matter: lets just call it "inflated".

  • namordnik namordnik

    25 Jan 2010, 3:38AM

    Chinese go around the world to settle in chinatowns.
    Germans go around the world to escape boredom of domestic lifestyle.
    Yanks go around the world to bomb foreign poor people.
    Russians go around the world to sit out revolutions.
    Brits go around the world to visit their ex-colonies.

  • auxesis auxesis

    25 Jan 2010, 3:48AM

    Every day, the descant of the Chilcot inquiry reminds us of where the refusal to recognise this truth can humiliatingly lead.

    And from Peter Preston's piece:

    Nobody meaningful anywhere on the political spectrum dissents from community sanctification these days, and a mighty chorus of assumed voter approval sings descant

    I can't recall having seen the word "descant" in The Guardian and yet here we have it twice in one day.

  • JoshRogan JoshRogan

    25 Jan 2010, 5:06AM

    Britain is a joke and will remain so if it continues to live in the past.

    I can't believe they still dish out MBEs, OBEs, etc. We are directly responsible for a lot of the mess the world is in and should be ashamed of our history.

    Our leaders should stop being delusional. Brown was shocked to be snubbed by Obama. That's the reality.

    If we want to show some mettle then suck it up, scrap the insane nukes, invest in a decent transportation system, sort out the NHS and schools,

    but most of all, be ourselves. Say no to the Yanks once in a while.

    Sending soldiers to the other side of the world to 'protect' the nation is not the way to go. Gunboat diplomacy they used to call it.

  • fortyniner fortyniner

    25 Jan 2010, 5:37AM

    Delusions of grandeur is what we are talking about. When it comes down to it the Emperor has no clothes.

    All this silly posturing on the world stage does us more harm than good. The impression for many, both at home and abroad, especially since the sycophantic Blair crawled up Bush's a**e, is that we are just a US puppet.

    We need to get out of the mindset that the world's problems are naturally ours to solve and we need to be the big shot about it. We need to stop sending our troops into obscure corners to poke our noses into other people's business.

    In fact minding our business just a little bit more would be most welcome.

  • shuisky shuisky

    25 Jan 2010, 5:51AM

    @auxesis

    It's no surprise Britain's singing descant these days - the country's voluntarily had its bollocks removed, and is now the official singing eunuch of the United States.

    Racist wars? Torture camps? Bombing Gaza? The loyal British Eunuch knows the descants to all those yankee tunes, and sings them with gusto. It's all Britain knows how to do any longer.

  • FalseConsciousness FalseConsciousness

    25 Jan 2010, 6:32AM

    Armchair99
    The worrying thing is the US has no plan at all with regard to china.

    Of course they have a plan, what you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are all about? The US is obviously trying to secure Central Asia and its massive oil and gas reserves at the expense of China, Russia, and Iran as well. A strike by Israel or the US on Iran would also seriously endanger Chinese interests. US interference in Sudan and Somalia, and now Yemen, are also partly related to countering China. As are US threats against North Korea and robust US support for Taiwan.

    So not a good time to cut the UK's defence budget from an already historical low of around 2.2% of GDP then?

    It is not in the interests of the British ruling elite or the UK as a nation-state to cut defence spending, but the UK is dead broke. If the ruling elite is to avoid massive opposition from the working class it must free up funds for social spending somehow

    Seems likely. The left in the UK is gonna get exactly what it's been waiting for for two generations - the fall of US hegemony.

    I'm not sure what "left" you're referring to, but the real left isn't awaiting the fall of US hegemony in particular, but the fall of world capitalism and imperialism.

    Do you think the chinese are gonna be better masters to us, or the africans, or gays or women of the poor?

    Probably not, but we're likely to find out sooner or later.

  • BrusselsLout BrusselsLout

    25 Jan 2010, 7:04AM

    Well the special relationship worked out well for this country didn't it?

    Exactly. Britain has survived on the myth of the Special Relationship for decades (since Thatcher?). It built itself a confidence on nothing.

    Working around Europe for well over decade, I put the Relationship to the test on a few occasions. I would ask Americans I had been working with or chatting to casually in bars what they thought of the Special Relationship.

    Not one of these Americans knew what I meant. I would explain the details so that there could no mistake.

    But a typical reaction would be "News to me".

    I mentioned all this here on a number of occasions over the years. But still, articles referring the Special Relationship continued.

    One evening, on a BBC Question Time, Michael Hezeltine became the first politician to admit in public that it did not exist. There soon followed an article here (by Marina Hyde) making the same noises as Hezeltine.

    Britain lost its empire a very long time ago, so it used the great myth to raise and sustain its own ego. Now the myth is out in the open, Britain is lost.

    Britain is now in limbo. And it will remain in limbo until it breaks its ego and gets real.

  • Amadeus37 Amadeus37

    25 Jan 2010, 8:13AM

    Our image? Don't make me laugh.
    To hold this conference on the very week when Blair is at the inquiry into the
    Iraq war - the pictures will go all around the world.

  • ElleGreen ElleGreen

    25 Jan 2010, 8:42AM

    Fortyniner

    We need to get out of the mindset that the world's problems are naturally ours to solve and we need to be the big shot about it. We need to stop sending our troops into obscure corners to poke our noses into other people's business

    I actually think Britain has significantly moved on from these collonialist attitudes. My perception is that we are now choosing to lead by example; it is interesting that Copenhagen is mentioned

    There are many outstanding issues which I'm here to resolve

    Would we prefer that Gordon Brown went to Copenhagen to jump on a bandwagon or to attend with the goal of solving problems and negotiating an effective agreement. I personally would be more offended if my country's leader had said "I am going to attend but there is not much I can do because my hands are tied by the legislative body".

    At least Britain comes with suggestions (ok the Tobin Tax is not flaw-free but its an idea) and a forward thinking attitude (we have one of the highest carbon emission reduction targets in the world). Yes we no longer have the economic or military power we once commanded but we still have a moral imperative that ours is a free and fair country based on innovation and ideas.

    Fortyniner (sorry to pick on you again) you say

    In fact minding our business just a little bit more would be most welcome.

    Please try saying that to nations wrecked by civil war because despotic regimes continue to rule their countries, or to women whose human rights are supressed from birth, or to those who live in the Small Island States which will be devasted by the effects of global warming.

    Britain used to try to convince these countries by autocratic rule that liberty, rule of law and progression of ideas were the most effective means of maintaining stability and prosperity. Now, more and more we lead by example(I acknowledge Afghanistan and Iraq sort of undermine this record), promoting our ideals and way of life by suggesting to others that we are a great country (obviously a working progress) who is trying to lead by example.

    We could stay quiet and take our place humbly at the table like Sweden or the Netherlands or we could continue to voice our beliefs that ours is a nation based on rights and liberties to which everyone should aspire and to which everyone is entitled.

  • farfetched farfetched

    25 Jan 2010, 8:43AM

    Clip | Link Faversham
    25 Jan 2010, 1:49AM
    You mean England's embarrassing and highly damaging fixation with its former Imperial status. Us Scots got over the loss of Empire a long time ago and there were plenty of us who, after being on the boot end of it, never gave a fig for it anyway.

    This sentiment is so unbelievably ignorant and reveals the uneducated basis of Scots nationalism.

    If you can be bothered to research the British Empire, how it came about, who pushed for expansion and who benefitted, you'd realise that the Scots (some might say to their credit) were some of the most enthusiastic and diligent colonialists going, and the Scottish economy boomed as a result. There wasn't an outpost of Empire that the Scots weren't involved in.

    Of course, it's much easier to blame everything on the English, most of whom lived in abject poverty and were little more than slaves to ruling classes.

  • bailliegillies bailliegillies

    25 Jan 2010, 9:01AM

    Who of us ever benefitted from empire, other than the city and the "great and good". The time to put it behind us is long overdue and we can start by dropping the pretence of being an important voice in the world and accept that we are just a small island off the coast of Europe.

    Europe is the shape of the future, not little Britain with it's self delusion of imperial grandeur.

  • bailliegillies bailliegillies

    25 Jan 2010, 9:06AM

    This sentiment is so unbelievably ignorant and reveals the uneducated basis of Scots nationalism.

    Farfetched

    Err, that's Horsey who lives in Hemel Hemstead and dreams of living in Barcelona. So please don't confuse him with us Scots, nationalist or otherwise

  • farfetched farfetched

    25 Jan 2010, 9:31AM

    Err, that's Horsey who lives in Hemel Hemstead and dreams of living in Barcelona. So please don't confuse him with us Scots, nationalist or otherwise

    I'm not confused, I've heard the 'blame the English for everything' sentiment enough times when the British Empire is debated.

    It's laughable that an article that centres around the imperial ambitions of Gordon Brown is then commented on by a Scot claiming that the Scots are 'over it'. The current government makes it abundantly clear that the opposite could be said to be true.

  • hideousmess hideousmess

    25 Jan 2010, 9:36AM

    The "white man's burden" paternalist colonialist cr*p is at the back of the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq and every moralistic justification of armed intervention (at least the French don't generally use that self-satisfied justification for military action). The UN at least puts a check on that - except when TB decides it's inconvenient for his personal religion (and income).

    Britain's decline as a world power can be most easily demonstrated by the fact that no one queries whether or not having a foreign power with nuclear weapons a bus ride from the centre of the capital is consistent with independence. Can you seriously imagine the Victorians putting up with the equivalent? (Or the Americans for that matter - remember Cuba?).

    Give it up, do.

  • ElleGreen ElleGreen

    25 Jan 2010, 9:49AM

    Howard D - unfortunately, comparitively speaking, in this world, I think Britain probably is still one of the hallmarks of democracy, decency, tolerance and good manners.

  • Avikwame Avikwame

    25 Jan 2010, 10:47AM

    @Armchair 99
    Your assessment is way out ! four years ago I was working in the
    Naval Dockyard at Brest France,I counted a Satellite Ship,36 Frigates and Destroyers,two nuclear Submarines and two diesel Electric Submarines who were charging their batteries for a trip,a helicopter Aircraft Carrier and over a dozen Ships on the slipways or in dry Docks being built or being re fitted.
    China has embarked on a virulent Shipbuilding programme,and Britain underestimated the Japanese since 1900,s in Naval expectations.
    The Indian Ocean over the following 20 years is being groomed for the next "Jutland" ,China is also making in roads into Tibet and Nepal.
    The other important omission is the possibility of the North West Passage (see John Cabot) and the Alaska/Canada,Greenland/N.Eire,Scotland,Denmark,Lithuania,Poland Missile Shield. You must also take into account the North East passage from Murmansk to the Kamchatka Peninsular and Manchuria and realize why the Russians are hammering in flags on the Sea Bed. Both the Arctic and Antarctic should figure prominently in your equations,for the Satellites (see feeders and decoders),then theres the situation of Piracy,not forgetting that the guarantor America is 5000 miles from Europe,and 8000 miles from Asia,and inherited the European Colonial territories from the aftermath of World War II.
    Dont fall asleep in that Armchair, " They who fall asleep in a Tigers cave,wont be dreaming for long."

  • Getridofem Getridofem

    25 Jan 2010, 10:50AM

    A Reality Check is essential. We are a small country and we are massively in debt. The days of being a World Power are over and we should adjust our role accordingly. We simply cannot afford it.

    It is not just the political right which has this fixation on playing a leading role. No matter which party gets into office they are all the same.

  • Faversham Faversham

    25 Jan 2010, 11:11AM

    I'm Scottish and live in Scotland.

    I don't blame the English people for anything and certainly don't expect them to take the blame for Empire. I'm sure we were bastards too. If anything too they are just as misruled as we Scots are although so many of them are in denial about their real national position that IMO it has made for an unhappy and in my experience a rather angry people. I don't think we are as unhappy or angry because we never really entwined our identity or fortunes with Empire.

    The Empire benefitted an Anglo-Scottish aristocracy and those that managed to become part of a new mercantile class. Most working Scots were just as poor and as ruthlessly exploited at the end of Empire as they were to begin with. They were often worse off than those they were sent to enslave. We were indeed great Empire builders and became the Administrators of Empire because of our superior universal education system IMO. We were also in many ways the backbone of the Britsh military to which we still contribute disproportionately today.

    But has all this benefitted Scotland as a nation. Is the national collective better off? Are we a Switzerland of the north or a Norway of the British Isles? No, we certainly aren't. Far from it which is a disgrace but proves what a lie this notion of Imperial clout is. That's why Empire must be consigned to history which it already has been for most Scots probably because as I said before we never exchanged Britishness for Scottishness. We always remained Scots despite the powers that be trying to turn us into North Britons. But all this is stuff of the past and I don't even care to think of it.

    Scotland needs to move forward as an independent nation and take her rightful place amongst European nations and indeed have her own seat at the UN. I think there would be an integrity in that that most Scots could respond to as opposed to helping maintain an Imperial delusion which is of no real benefit to us and props up a British ruling class which has never really treated Scots and Scotland with respect.

  • superscruff superscruff

    25 Jan 2010, 11:14AM

    The words delusion and granduer come to mind about the UK goverments thoughts about our place in the world.
    Working for an influential EU is without doubt our best bet.

  • Garcie Garcie

    25 Jan 2010, 11:31AM

    Its only when you go abroad that you realise we are great :)

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 28, 2010

J D Salinger dies, aged 91

Catcher in the Rye author JD Salinger has died of natural causes at his home in New Hampshire.

JD Salinger, who shocked one generation and inspired another with a classic novel of teenage rebellion, has died in New Hampshire at the age of 91.

Salinger, who shied away from publicity and did not publish an original work during the last 45 years of his life, was the creator of Holden Caulfield, the delinquent, alienated anti-hero of The Catcher in the Rye, which became required reading for generations of teenagers after its publication in 1951.

But in recent years its relevance to modern youth came into question and his reputation was tarnished by two accounts, one by a former lover and the other by one of Salinger's daughters, who painted him as a controlling and unpleasant eccentric.

The Catcher in the Rye was praised by the New York Times on publication as "an unusually brilliant first novel". But while an instant hit with many teenagers who related to its tale of adolescent angst and adult hypocrisy, it was met with alarm in other quarters. Some school boards made it required reading. Others banned it amid protests from parents over swearing – including the frequent use of "goddam" and, more rarely, "fuck" – as well as the bad example they believed Holden set.

Four years after its publication Salinger expressed disappointment that the book, which he acknowledged was based on his own upbringing, had met with some hostility.

"I'm aware that a number of my friends will be saddened, or shocked, or shocked-saddened, over some of the chapters of The Catcher in the Rye. Some of my best friends are children. In fact all of my best friends are children," he wrote in 20th Century Authors. "It's almost unbearable to me to realise that my book will be kept on a shelf out of their reach."

John Lennon's murderer, Mark Chapman, cited The Catcher in the Rye as an inspiration for the killing in 1980.

Salinger published other books, including the well received Nine Stories and Franny and Zooey, before he became an almost total recluse. His last published work – Hapworth 16, 1928 – was printed in The New Yorker in 1965.

Ten years ago it was revealed that Salinger had a secret cache of about 15 novels that had never been published. In his last interview, in 1980, he said that he only wrote for himself.

In 1986 Salinger won an injunction against the publication of a collection of his letters. During the case, which went all the way to the US supreme court, he was asked what he had been working on for the previous 20 years.

"Just a work of fiction," Salinger said in a deposition. "That's all. That's the only description I can really give it ... It's almost impossible to define. I work with characters, and as they develop I just go on from there."

Salinger was born in New York City on New Year's Day 1919. His father, of Polish Jewish origin, became wealthy importing cheese and meat. His mother posed as Jewish and he did not find out that she was not until after his bar mitzvah.

Salinger had his own troubled history in various schools until he was dispatched to Valley Forge military academy at the age of 15. There he began writing at night using a torch under his bed covers and published his first story in a fiction magazine in 1940.

He submitted a number of stories to the New Yorker that were rejected, including one called I Went to School with Adolf Hitler. But the magazine did accept a later story about a disaffected teenager called Holden Caulfield, the first time the character appeared.

In 1942 Salinger was conscripted to fight in the second world war where he took part in the Normandy landings. He married a German woman while serving with the occupation forces after the defeat of Hitler. The couple moved to America but the marriage soon fell apart. Salinger took up Zen Buddhism.

He found fame disagreeable and the year after the publication of his most famous novel he left New York city for the town of Cornish, New Hampshire. There he remarried, to Claire Douglas, had two children, and then divorced in 1967.

Periodically the spotlight shone on Salinger again.

In 1998 the writer Joyce Maynard published a memoir in which she wrote unflatteringly about an eight-month affair with Salinger in which she described his controlling personality. Two years later one of Salinger's daughters, Margaret, wrote of her father as a recluse who drank his own urine and spoke in tongues.

Salinger was thrust into public view one last time a year ago when he sued to block the publication of an unauthorised sequel to The Catcher in the Rye called 60 Years Later. The writer, John David California, imagined Holden in his 70s.

--

Chris McGreal in Washington, The Guardian, Thursday 28 January

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Image of the Week #1

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

45 Americans claim asylum in Britain


The figures reveal 45 applications were submitted to the UK Border Agency by Americans between 2004 and 2008. Photograph: PA

--

Home Office statistics reveal dozens of applications by people claiming persecution in the US.

They hail from the land of the free, the home of the brave, a place where it is said anyone can prosper regardless of colour, creed or religion. But dozens of Americans have tried in recent years to gain asylum in the UK by claiming they were persecuted in their homeland, according to figures released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.

Home Office statistics show that between 2004 and 2008, 45 Americans submitted asylum applications to the UK Border Agency claiming they had fled the US and were unable to go back because they had a well-founded fear of persecution. Fifteen Canadians also applied. All 60 were turned down.

A US government source said the American applications were most likely submitted by self-declared "political refugees" claiming they faced discrimination under the last administration. The applications from the US peaked in 2008, the final year of George Bush's presidency, when 15 Americans submitted asylum claims.

Between 2004 and 2008 there were 132,640 asylum claims made in the UK, according to government statistics.

The Home Office refused to reveal the rationale behind the claims or why they were refused, saying a manual search of the records would be required, exceeding the time limit for Freedom of Information requests.

But on various online forums, people claiming to be American refugees have outlined their cases. One Texan hoping to be allowed sanctuary in Scotland claimed he had been "persecuted as a political dissident against US government war-mongering".

Liza Schuster, an asylum expert from the department of sociology at City University, said: "I don't know the details of those cases, but assume the US citizens are deserting before being sent to somewhere like Afghanistan. With the Canadians I'm really not sure. It is, as is clear from the numbers, pretty unusual – if only because it is relatively easy for those people to leave their countries and settle elsewhere. Why not just apply for a work visa and renew and then apply for leave to remain?

"As someone who would not find admission to European countries too difficult, it would only make sense to claim asylum if you feared extradition back to Canada or the US, or if there was some reason you might be refused entry. It is interesting – I'd be curious to know more – not least because in spite of what the law books say, granting asylum is a criticism of the originating state."

According to the Home Office figures, most of the US and Canadian applicants were aged between 18 and 59, though a small number of American asylum seekers were over 60.

The Refugee Council, the largest organisation in the UK working with asylum seekers and refugees, said it had helped 18 American and two Canadian asylum seekers between 2004 and 2008. The adults ranged in age from 29 to 59 with a mean age of 44. The Americans had nine dependent children aged under 16.

"In this time this group of clients attended 40 advice sessions and mainly came to see us regarding their entitlement to UKBA asylum support, and issues associated with destitution," said a spokeswoman.

Donna Covey, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: "No country is safe for every person all of the time. Those with a genuine need for protection, whatever country they are from, should have the right to claim asylum in a place of safety."

A small number of Americans have successfully claimed asylum abroad over the past few decades. In 1997 the Netherlands granted asylum to Holly Ann Collins, together with her three children, when they claimed to be fleeing domestic abuse. The family had spent three years living in four different Dutch refugee camps before their application was approved.

In June 2008 Texan mother Chere Tomayko and her two daughters were granted asylum in Costa Rica, also on the grounds of abuse.

After America went to war in Iraq in 2003 a number of US soldiers deserted and crossed the border to Canada, where they tried to claim asylum.

For a number of years Private Bethany Smith has been fighting to stay in Canada, claiming she was persecuted in the army because she is a lesbian.

Smith, who now goes by the name Skylar James, told Canadian authorities she was repeatedly harassed and threatened with death, then denied an honourable discharge because her superiors wanted to send her to Afghanistan. In November a senior judge ordered Canada's immigration and refugee board to look again at her case.

If you are one of the Americans or Canadians who sought asylum in the UK or you know someone who is, please contact helen.pidd@guardian.co.uk

--

Helen Pidd, The Guardian, 25 January 2010

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, January 25, 2010

Tired and Tested - My New Novel

A L Kennedy on Writing:

OK, I concede that it's not mountaineering, but even in good health starting a new book consumes an awful lot of energy.

So, Best Beloveds, the New Novel. I'm calling it that in the frail hope that it will hear me and turn into one – at the moment it is, of course, the New Notebook Full Of Stuff and A Smattering of Early Paragraphs. A long project is, as you will realise, a massive and potentially ludicrous commitment of time and enthusiasm which could come apart in your hands at any moment, could promise wonders, cough twice and then turn into ashes and sand at the end of three years' preparation and one year's labour.

Its customary horrors have been enhanced this time around by my continuing flu. Many commiserations to those of you who are also still staggering along in the grip of the season's available viruses – you will be well able to imagine how much serious work I've actually managed to get done whilst feeling that I am trapped on a ship in high seas with someone who is trying to insert a migraine into my face using a dulled Black and Decker router. Round and round the fretting runs - I should be further ahead. I should get better more quickly. I should have a nice little bundle of pages to ponder and hit with a stick by now. I should…

Well, frankly, I pretty much always should be somewhere and someone other than I am at this point. The initial stages of all my novels have always been sabotaged by (in order) my day job, my part-time job, the other writing I was doing while I was writing them, the work I was meant to have finished long before I got to this point and – naturally – the hideous diseases which flesh is heir to, if you persist in making it work and sit on trains and never give it days off and trips to the zoo with balloons. Or even without balloons. And if you have, in general, been unable to continue your programme of inspirational and nourishing treats as you would have wished.

I am more worried than usual, but then again I am always more worried than usual – so that must be usual, right?

A greater part of writing than you might suppose relies upon the writer ignoring or temporarily setting aside a whole circus troupe of ugly fears and just typing in spite of them. Once I've dodged my own novel-related anxieties I can get used to the familiar cycle of enthusiasms and despairs – I wake up in the middle of the night having finally found out the male protagonist's proper name: he promptly stops speaking to me and I lie in the dark wondering what he's up to, if he's found someone else to let him be expressed ... I suddenly feel I have exactly the emotional tone and progression for the opening section, it is exciting, clear and inviting: I reach the page and it all veers off somewhere horrible and leaden while I get overly concerned about a tiny and possibly irrelevant description ... I think I know the title of the book, I seem to have known it for quite a while and to be happy with it: but is it a good title, will it work?

Beyond this there is the sense – even if you're entirely well – that putting one word after another is impossibly tiring. Although that's quite likely to be a good sign. Falling asleep in my special typing chair after a couple of pages at the start of a book is, in fact, often an excellent sign. This is because writing prose is exhausting. Not in the way that coal mining is exhausting, or dragging the body of your frozen companion over an icy Alpine pass is exhausting, but it's demanding, nonetheless. By the end of the novel, things will be easier. Months of concentrating as hard as you are able and then a little bit harder still, of trying to think about sense and musicality and scansion and psychology and tone and metaphor and energy and pace and a number of additional technical doodads will have beaten what's left of your mind into shape and the novel itself will be helping – the characters will be happy to dictate what they will and will not stand for and prior events will be contributing their consequences.

But I find that, once a book is finished. when I return to it for the first set of overall rewrites after a couple of weeks' break, all of my hard-won stamina has melted away and I am, once again, pathetically feeble. Which is why I'm always happy when a new writer comes to see me and says, in a puzzled and down-hearted manner, something along the lines of, "It's hard." This quite often tends to mean that they have started putting in the amount of effort their work (and the kind lady and gentleman readers) deserve.

There are exceptions to this Rule of Tiredness – there are always exceptions in writing. Except when there aren't, which would be the exception to that. I'm never in any way dismayed when something is so anxious to be written that it rips into the page as soon as I give it the chance and won't let me be until it's done – and if I have to load up on Kopi Luwak and Red Bull and hold on tight for a few days to keep up, then so be it. But I've never known that to happen with the start of a novel. In my experience, that tends to be much more like being naked and maliciously observed, spirit voices gathering on all sides to mutter things like, "You're shit." And "This is a bad idea." And "You really have no arse to speak of at all, do you?"

Meanwhile, I look forward to being no longer poorly and therefore able to avoid the whole novel-writing issue in a more traditional manner - by dusting, making soup, staring, pacing, repainting the stairwell, dozing, crying, fainting ... Even so, I'll always eventually end up battering away at the thing until it batters back. It's lovely and it's mind-bending and I wouldn't be without it. Onwards.

--

A L Kennedy, The Guardian, Friday 22 January 2010

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

My novel about painting, criminality, and the greatest art forger of the twentieth century!

My novel about painting, criminality, and the greatest art forger of the twentieth century!
Please click the cover!

My novel about London, murder, mayhem, and a female killer!

My novel about London, murder, mayhem, and a female killer!
Please click the cover!

My novel about running, Princeton University, and a conman who lost it all!

My novel about running, Princeton University, and a conman who lost it all!
Please click the cover!

My novel about love, betrayal and chess in New Orleans

My novel about love, betrayal and chess in New Orleans
Please click the book!

My semi-autobiographical novel about a very British education and becoming an American!

My semi-autobiographical novel about a very British education and becoming an American!
Please click the cover!

My novel about London, murder, mayhem, and a female killer!

My novel about London, murder, mayhem, and a female killer!
Please click the cover!