“. . . .a world suffering from ‘global warming and environmental degradation, multiple conflicts, rising military budgets, disregard for international law and international humanitarian law, disruptions to trade, erosion of democratic governance and technological developments that are met with excitement and fear.’ ”
This quotation from a speech by Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Brazil’s ambassador to the UK, forms the opening of a full page article by the Guardian’s diplomatic editor, Patrick Wintour in last Saturday’s paper.
It seems to be a pretty god description of the world we’re in.
Wintour’s article is headlined “Hope emerges from chaos.”
It wold be foolish to expect the situation Ambassador Patriota depicts to influence how the UK’s citizens cast their votes on Thursday. Perhaps it shouldn’t.
Many retiring and aspiring councillors and Senedd and Scottish parliamentary candidates would like their electorates to vote according to the skill with which they have or are likely to organise the functions for which their councils and devolved administrations are actually responsible for.
However this is a forlorn hope, largely because the UK’s governance is so highly centralised that the councils and devolved administrations have little real independence and are increasingly at the beck and call of Westminster and Whitehall to carry out their masters’ wishes.
So these local elections are inevitably a verdict on the performance of the present central government and an indication (however unreliable) of who might form the next one,
Therefore we need to think which of the now five seriously contending parties are likely to be in the best position to deal intelligently with the scenario Patriota describes.
On the basis of their present performances, probably none of the above.
Wintour’s argument is that the post-Cold War era of US leadership has clearly failed, that we cannot expect it to adopt a more virtuous path once Trump’s wings are clipped by Democrat congressional victories in November, and a Democrat president restores "normal service" in 2029.
The era of American dominance is over.
The sane future therefore lies in a coalition of middle-ranking powers: Germany, France, Brazil , Australia , Canada, and others, dedicated to liberal democracy and prepared to work together in a reformed United Nations reflecting present-day realities.
The UK should be part of this.
(Wintour doesn’t say this, but I would prefer the UK to abandon the pretence of playing a “leading” role: just be a willing and effective partner. That would be far more productive and less embarrassing than the past eighty years of playing Robin to America’s Batmen)
This will require both vision and optimism.
No single party has these, but in my view a combination of Liberals, Greens, the less hide-bound ranks of Labour and One-nation Tories (if there are any left) could achieve them. Tactical voters should vote for which ever of these is the most likely to win on Thursday.
This could give a signal to the parties as to the policies they should be nurturing for our General Election in 2029 (or sooner.)
The era of American dominance is over.
ReplyDeleteWhat a bizarre thing to say. The United states is still clearly, and by far, the world's dominant power. No other nation even comes close, and none seems likely to in the foreseeable future.
The United States could easily fight and win a war against any two other nations in the world simultaneously — the only reason that Iran is not a barren wasteland right now is that the United States is holding back most of its military might (Mr Trump's threat to 'end Iranian civilisation' was, I hope you realise, not an empty one: to do that is entirely within the capability of the conventional forces of the United States).
Even if all the 'middle-ranking' countries you name were to combine and attack the United States, do you really think they could win? My money, and I think everyone sensible's, would be on the Yanks.
I see I may have exaggerated the point Wintour is describing. What he actually writes is: "The argument that the current dark ea of American Unilateralism and lawless militarism may be coming to a premature end. . . is gathering momentum as other western countries recover their poise .. ."
ReplyDeletethe current dark ea of American Unilateralism and lawless militarism may be coming to a premature end. . . is gathering momentum as other western countries recover their poise
DeleteIn that case I am not sure what the writer means. What force does he think can possibly reign in ‘American unilateralism and lawless militarism’, given that even all ‘other western countries’ acting in concert would be completely unable to prevent the USA from doing exactly what it pleases?
If other western states wished to be able to restrain American action they would have had to spend the last thirty-five years maintaining and increasing their military powers, as the USA did, instead of spending the post-Cold War ‘peace dividend’ on beefing up their welfare states. Instead, while the USA bought itself guns, the other Western nations got fat on butter; and the inevitable result is that they have made themselves utterly irrelevant.
I agree that "Europe" has relied too heavily on the US in the past. We must now learn the lesson and my hope is that the UK will be one of the "other western countries" which "recover their poise" rather than continue to act as America's poodle. Mr Carney in Canada is giving a good lead.
ReplyDeleteMr Carney in Canada is giving a good lead.
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase Mr Stalin, ‘and how many divisions has Canada got?’
The point is not the number of divisions one member has, but the totality of the coalition of those committed to a liberal and rules based world. The "divisions" attitude and commitment will be as important as military clout.
ReplyDelete