Wednesday, April 24, 2002
10:47 pm
Narrower still and narrower
Christopher Montgomery's latest article is mentioned on Stephen Chapman's Daddy Warblogs. He doesn't like it:
My problem with his position generally is that, in the grand scheme of things - and I am, unashamedly, interested in the 'grand scheme of things' - British foreign policy by itself isn't worth dick.
A rather odd observation considering that the world's fourth richest country has not had its own foreign policy on anything important since Suez.
Now, OK - if you want the UK to be another Switzerland, existing in a state of near-perfect isolated sovereignty, then fine. I don't agree with you, but then I'm more interested in what nations represent and what they stand for than any purely nationalistic sentiment. I am most definitely not a 'my country right or wrong' kind of guy.
This is one area where in fact Mr Montgomery and I disagree. Mr Montgomery is a "die hard" of the Churchill or Powell tradition who believes in an imperial and independent Britain. Myself I am more of a Little Englander, who while aware of Britain's ability to project power think that it is simply not worth the cost.
So I suspect that the question is aimed at myself. What is the point of a foreign policy that doesn't have a moral tone to it? What are we doing with an army when all they do is defend us?
You could take it a bit further and ask what is the point of a police force when all it does is to protect our life, liberty and property? Shouldn't there be a moral tone to policing, improving people's morality by outlawing rum, Romanism and sodomy? You can insert three of your own vices of choice (for all my alcoholic Catholic readers, I have nothing against Rum and Romanism). Of course some of us may say, and indeed I do, that the police should merely concentrate on protecting us from others and letting us look after our own morality.
This idea of a core competancy also applies to foreign and defence policy. If you want morality in the Middle East you can always send money to the Israeli embassy, or even go over there yourself - just don't spend my tax money or propose to put me at a greater risk for your morality. The sole aim of British foreign policy should be to provide security for British subjects on British soil, the morality we can look after ourselves.
What I want to know is this: suppose we had complete control of our own foreign policy. What would we do?
Perhaps we wouldn't get in the history books, but Britain could be more secure for less money. The prosperity and safety of her citizens may not be a grand goal, but it is a worthy one.
And then there would be the ability to run our own domestic politics. To take a small example, we used to have a negligible heroin problem, because we allowed Doctor's to prescribe it. However, to fit in with the American war on drugs (it wasn't called that then) we clamped down on doctor prescription. A nation that had some pride in itself would not have sacrificed all those young men and women. Similarly we don't have those wonderfully batty debates on the death penalty because we are not allowed to reintroduce it under the stipulations of the European Convention of Human Rights, a condition of our membership of the EU.
Many of my readers may not think legalising drugs or reintroducing the rope are good things, however they are domestic issues. Yet foreigners are telling us what we may and may not do.
What are our compromises with Europe and the US preventing us from doing off our own bat?
There are plenty, but let's start with the European Union, NATO, ECHR, the UN, OECD, the Dublin Convention...
Or is this splendid sovereignty to be an end in itself?
No, the national interest is the end. Sovereignty is simply the only way of attaining it.
I simply don't see this happening. We are already in psychological 'decline' mode, not quite as decadent as the Continent, but heading that way. Sovereign foreign policy is for nations that believe in themselves and believe in the things they say they stand for - in other words, it's for nations like the US and Israel, nations psychologically different from ourselves.
China and Iran believe in themselves. Should we follow them in the same way as we follow the US and Israel?
Britain has a secure perch in the North Atlantic and a surprisingly rich economy. She has the infrastructure for an independent foreign policy, the mentality will follow of its own accord.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2002
(915)
-
▼
April
(80)
- Where's Osama? Just asking.
- Chasing Turkey From Auntie: The Turkish Governme...
- Interviewing Le Stylo John Laughland interviews L...
- Bear with me I lost my template, so the comments ...
- Konspiracy Korner Never ever claim that I'm not g...
- Mark Steyn jumps the Shark That patron saint of t...
- Is Le Pen a man of the Left? Mark Steyn states: ...
- What was he doing here, anyway? One of the good t...
- Jim Henley points out what I've got to say on Le P...
- Our Partners in Europe Five British plane-spotter...
- You're either with us... On the Irish theme, here...
- No, Le Pen's not one of the nice guys What is The...
- So the Peace Process is a success? This is from a...
- Bud nipping For all our sneers and jeers at Franc...
- There will always be an England A little over a y...
- Collective Guilt - a dodgy concept Why do all Lib...
- Narrower still and narrower Christopher Montgomer...
- Some comment on the Andrew Alexander piece from ...
- In case you weren't told... British troops in sec...
- At Last, a reason to vote for Le Pen Le Pen pledg...
- Regional Base An interesting map shows who won wh...
- Who's the Daddy? My biggest ever daily hit rate (...
- Welcome Strangers For all the Raimondo readers yo...
- Questions on Le Pen Put your questions to the BBC...
- Good point Peter Briffa points out that: Le Pen ...
- Over at antiwar.com At my old scratching ground t...
- Apres le deluge An embittered old man with extens...
- And it hits the fan If the early results are to b...
- No title
- Why independence matters Bruce Anderson writes an...
- Better late than never It's the debate on the Mid...
- Iain Dale points to an interesting phenomenen, Bri...
- Web Log Ping Pong Natalie Solent asks, "can herea...
- The Eurosceptic case for Brown What is the bigges...
- Was the Soviet threat bogus? Andrew Alexander arg...
- Apart from killing millions of innocent people... ...
- It should at least be funny Is calling for the in...
- The material importance of Geography I have been ...
- All for One & One for All. I hope this will not b...
- Genocidal, moi? Natalie Solent takes me to task o...
- Something odd about Ariel So all us peaceniks che...
- Reader Feedback Why not actually write to her, I ...
- Other Stuff So Tony Blair says to his press secre...
- Off her trolley The gossip of the past few days a...
- Matthew Parris has words of warning for the peacen...
- How'd that happen? Chavez returns to power Vene...
- Amateur Hour Why those wacky Lib Dems, always the...
- Who said that? Obviously we are at the limits of ...
- Ode to Chavez So farewell then Hugo Chavez of Ven...
- Here's a link to yesterday's Prime Minister's Ques...
- Thanks for asking, but... No, I'm not Eric Blair ...
- Parliament to discuss foreign policy - shock Nick...
- Why Blair won't be the next Ramsay MacDonald Blai...
- Israel, Palestine and the Blogosphere Israel is a...
- The Continuing Success of Intervention. Item 236 ...
- The Continuing Success of Intervention. Item 235 ...
- Mark Steyn is straight... ... and so is Conrad Bla...
- The Continuing Success of Intervention. Item 234 ...
- The Continuing Success of Intervention. Item 233 ...
- Monty's Back My improvement at antiwar.com has su...
- I've found this old article by my hero Correlli Ba...
- My piece on Israel has been linked by Metafilter a...
- A right wing case against the invasion of Iraq, la...
- Are we expecting too much of Israel I don't know ...
- This coup in Afghanistan, maybe its not really a c...
- These are our allies Julian Manyon pours scorn on...
- Hubris According to Nick Robinson: Powerful peop...
- No, it's not idealistic I really admire Fred Prui...
- Outraged HOW DOES TONY BLAIR GET AWAY WITH IT? as...
- Non Sequitor of the day African nations still was...
- Here's an old article by Dan Plesch of the Royal U...
- Blair sorts out the Middle East It must be true, ...
- Peace in Afghanistan An "attempted coup" has been...
- Labour rebels are rallying round opposition to an ...
- Are they stupid, or just dishonest? Christopher M...
- It's not about hurt feelings, Tam What is it abou...
- Stirrings on the Right This could be promising, M...
- Could Spell Trouble Labour's euro dissidents to b...
- New Link Gary Farber has a reciprocal link. I've...
- Given the nod I've been mentioned by Glenn Reynol...
-
▼
April
(80)
0 comments:
Post a Comment