Colonial Britain

Therefore I say that it is a naïve to suppose that this country (England) has an eternal ally or perpetual enemies. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.[i] [Lord Palmerston, British Prime Minister 1855 - 1858 and 1859 – 1865]

Lord Palmerston was open and frank about British foreign policy in the 19th century. His interventions around the world in the name of the British Empire have ever since come to be known as gunboat diplomacy. Today his disciples such as David Cameron continue with their attempts at furthering British interests. In a recent trip to Pakistan the British Prime Minister appeared to distance himself from the imperial past when he suggested that Britain was to blame for decades of tension and several wars over disputed territories, as well as other global conflicts. His remarks came on a visit to Pakistan, when he was asked how Britain could help to end the row over Kashmir. He insisted that it was not his place to intervene in the dispute, saying: "I don't want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world's problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place."

Britain for the last two centuries has depicted its role in the world as humanitarian and even ethical. Has Britain changed its role in the world, and can Britain really ever cease to be colonial?

Transitional Rulers

It should be remembered that rulers, be they presidents or prime ministers are largely transitional, they do not fundamentally change the interests of a nation, they merely differ in the strategies to achieve the national interest. Therefore when analysing any nation's polices and interests it is not the ruler that needs to be studied but rather what he or she is trying to further. A case in point is the transition from George W. Bush to Barak Obama in the US. The Neo-Cons who surrounded Bush believed the US was the uncontested power at the turn of the 21st century and it needed to ensure this remained the case at the turn of the next century. They believed the US no longer needed international institutes, laws and treaties, as this was curtailing the US. They believed why waste time in diplomacy when the barrel of the gun could achieve the same results in half the time. The Neo-Cons had various plans to conduct liberal interventions and regime change around the world - Iraq was their first attempt at this, which failed miserably.

When Barak Obama rose to power he changed the way the US would achieve its interests, he did not change the national interest. US Presidents operate in a world of constraints and limitations which ensures they protect the interests of the nation. Obama shifted the focus from Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan as he felt success here would secure US interests. Like Bush who unleashed ‘Shock and Awe' on Iraq, Obama unleashed large scale drone attacks on Pakistan. Obama's successors will only differ in their priorities, styles and means in protecting US interests, they are unable to change the national interest.

Britain Today

World War Two consumed Britain to such an extent that it brought an end to the British Empire and its international standing. This was because Britain was virtually bankrupt from WW1. Its army was overstretched and Britain was not in a position to enter another war. This is why in the post war era, British global aims have been restricted by its economic reality.

For this reason Britain worked and continues to have a role in the world by partaking in global issues. However it is unable to completely shift the global balance of power. Fareed Zakaria, the Newsweek international columnist in his book ‘The Post American World,' encapsulated British policy: "The photographs of Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 are somewhat misleading. There was no 'big three' at Yalta. There was a 'big two' plus one brilliant political entrepreneur who was able to keep himself and his country in the game, so that Britain maintained many elements of great powerdom well into the late 20th century."[ii]

British foreign policy today is built upon having a role in Europe and influencing the US. British policy makers have accepted the nation's weakness after WW2 and developed a policy of preservation rather then outright competition with the US. Britain has managed to achieve its interests through a policy of preserving its global ambitions by working with the US and the EU, whilst at the same time working to divert, alter, complicate and limit the aims of both.

Britain's recent policies to achieve its interests show that politically, Britain as a nation will always compete with the US, and engage in international struggle to further its interests, irrespective of what David Cameron tells us. Britain today remains a colonial nation - albeit less successful than a century ago.

Libya - Britain brought Gaddafi to power in 1969 in a coup that toppled King Idris. The monarch was a client of the British state, but had become weak. During the period of isolation and sanctions Britain maintained contact with the Gaddafi regime. Britain frustrated US plans by rescuing Gaddafi's government from the clutches of American neoconservatives who after September 11 wanted regime change in Libya. Britain manipulated Gaddafi into accepting Libya's role in the Lockerbie disaster and secured the release of Al-Megrahi in 2009, securing in turn a stable supply of Africa's oil. Gaddafi and his family were portrayed by the British and West as reformed modernizers with a gleam of democratic credentials. In Britain, Gaddafi and his family mixed with the aristocracy and with the likes of Nat Rothschild who through his friend Lord Mandelson a confidant of ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair helped engineer Libya's rehabilitation in the so called ‘comity of nations'. As part of this clandestine assistance, Britain also exercised great freedom over the Libyan Investment Authority, which at the last count had $70 billion of plundered money belonging to the Libyan people. However sensing the cataclysmic nature of protests across Libya, the UK was quick to abandon Gaddafi and expunge any vestiges of cooperation between the two countries. William Hague UK foreign secretary scurried to announce Gaddafi‘s exit to Venezuela and that the UK was looking to a post-Gaddafi era. Nonetheless, the enigmatic Gaddafi whom the British nurtured and protected dug in his heels and decided to fight. Outraged by Gaddafi's defiance the British mobilized Western countries and the UN to use force to remove him from power-the unofficial goal of military intervention.

Afghanistan - In Afghanistan the UK has played an ominous role. After eight years of war the western allies are no closer to defeating the Taliban. Britain has actually complicated America's presence in South Afghanistan where most of the fighting still continues. The Helmand province where British troops are stationed is still not secure after all these years. Britain cut deals with the Taliban in the South which included bribing the Taliban. A Times newspaper investigation in 2007 revealed over £1.5 million was spent in bribing members of the Taliban.[iii]

Sudan - America brokered the Naivasha peace accord in 2005, which culminated in the eventual termination of the civil war between the main rebel group, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and the Sudanese government. The terms of the agreement included a variety of measures that gave the South autonomy and the prospects of secession in 2011 when the deal expired. Both Britain and France provided arms to Chad, which supports and arms the rebels in Darfur, which created the Darfur issue. Both nations have successfully internationalised the issue of Darfur and attempted to complicate US plans to separate the South of Sudan.

Lebanon - In Lebanon the assassinations of prominent politicians have deeply divided Lebanon into pro-Syrian/Hizbullah and pro-EU camps. The Hezbollah-led March 8 coalition utilised its veto vote to complicate the forming of a government. Both Britain and France have engaged with the March 14 coalition led by Saad Hariri's Future Movement to maintain their relevance in Lebanese politics. In this way Britain along with France have ensured US influence does not increase in Lebanon.

Iran - Whilst Britain is member of the P5 + 1 commission attempting to bring Iran in line and halt its attempts to enrich Uranium to weapons grade standard, it has used its role to complicate American interests. In the Iranian elections in 2009 Britain alongside Europe blew the election result out of proportion and worked to exploit the situation. Britain argued that the Iranian regime needs to address the legitimate concerns of the protesters; they also didn't recognize the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad. The US on the other hand, who is looking to impose harsh sanctions on the country, actually supported the regime by arguing that the issue was an Iranian domestic matter. Britain and France had tried to influence the protests, but it was a weak attempt to bring down the Ahmadinejad regime.

Sierra Leone - In 1787, Britain established a refuge in Sierra Leone in order to cultivate a middle class loyal to the British. The Creoles, as they came to be known, were cut off from their traditions by the experience of slavery, assimilated British lifestyles and built a flourishing trade on the West African coast. In 1827 the first European-style university was built in Sierra Leone, which soon became a centre for English-speaking Africans from the West Coast. The British and Creoles were bitterly resented by the indigenous population. Since independence in 1961 Sierra Leone has maintained an intimate relationship with its colonizer. Whilst Britain was not completely absent following Sierra Leones independence, the civil war in 1991 allowed Britain to strengthen its position in Sierra Leone through both military and financial aid. This all continued to take place despite a UN ban. Britain supported the allies of President Kabbah who was over thrown in 1997, through the British firm Sandline International, who provided logistical support for a counter-coup. Sandline arranged for a shipment of 35 tons of Bulgarian-made AK-47 rifles to Sierra Leone. President Kabbah's supporters said the shipment was made after consultation with the British Foreign Office.

Nigeria - Nigeria was a British colony. Britain however maintained its grip through producing a large share of Nigeria's oil wealth through Royal Dutch Shell, which today produces 50% of Nigeria's oil. Nigeria's military has protected the oil infrastructure, which has protected British interests in the country. Nigeria's military has ruled the country for most of its history since independence. Nigeria has risen in importance for the US as it attempts to diversify its oil dependency from Middle Eastern oil - Nigeria is central to this as it represents an alternative source to that of the Middle East. The US has attempted to counter the British grip on Nigeria through calls for democracy in order to weaken the militaries hold on the nation and thus weaken Britain. The struggle over influence in Nigeria is set to be intense as the US continues to use democracy as a front to gain influence over Nigeria's coveted oil wealth and reduce its dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Whilst the British attempt to maintain their grip on the nation through the weakening hand of the army.

Europe - The British establishment views complete isolationism from the EU as unrealistic. Europe is too close and too large to be simply ignored. Successive British governments believe that through engagement, London can influence the EU's development and the ultimate direction of its policies. It is not opposed to a European political union, as long as London does not turn into Luxemburg and melt into the EU. It wants a prominent seat at the table of such a union.

Political Ambition v Economic Reality

Britain has successfully kept itself in the international game through participating in international issues. An example of this is the Afghan war. Britain has no overriding interests in the country, however it has participated in the US led war to keep itself relevant and in this way it is able to shape the outcome of the conflict. This is all Britain will achieve; it will never shift the worlds superpower from its post as it lacks the power, economy or resources.

Whilst Britain has a £1.5 trillion economy, the 6th largest in the world Britain lacks the industrial base to pose any challenge to the US. Britain has global aims and has mastered the art of political manoeuvring; however it punches above its weight. Britain was bankrupt due to the costs of WW1, it was in no position to challenge the rise of Nazi Germany, and this in some way explains Neville Chamberlain's appeasement. However with Hitler's Germany occupying most of Europe and on the verge of removing Britain as the world's superpower Britain went to war to reverse Germany's advance. With the Soviet Union launching an Eastern offensive and with Britain and the US launching the D-day offensive landings in France, Germany was defeated by 1945. However it was not Britain who defeated Germany - it was the Soviet Union and the US. Britain was devastated, the country lay in ruins and economically the British Empire was in no position to fund its global empire.

The resultant austerity years resulted in the economies of the US, Soviet Union, Japan and Germany overtaking Britain. British industry paled into insignificance to the technological developments taking place in the US and by the time Thatcher arrived in office in 1979 Britain was abandoning its industrial base which was developed in the 18th century - Britain was the first country in the world to industrialise, it was central to it becoming a world power.

Conclusions

Britain's global outlook is based upon protecting the array of interests it has. This can be encapsulated as Britain complicating, altering and diverting the plans of other powers. This is how Britain keeps itself relevant. Britain has global ambitions but due to the economic reality of Britain, it has no propensity to remove the US and other powers from areas of influence Britain for so long dominated.

Britain can complicate the plans of other world powers to the extent that it is taken seriously in the world. This is why the US very rarely goes into conflicts alone and usually takes Britain along with it in its colonial adventures. For Britain it has the front seat with the world's superpower and can see at first hand US plans evolve. This places it in pole position to benefit from US aims and gives it the option to complicate US plans if this serves its aims.

This dual, sometimes contradictory approach is how Britain keeps itself relevant in international politics. This is what Britain has resigned its role to in international politics. It continues with its colonial ambitions using the cover of humanitarianism. Britain continues to play its weakening hand with impressive political skill, considering there are many other world powers with stronger economies.

[Written by Adnan Khan, April 2011]


[i] Speech to the House of Commons (1 March 1848), Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. 3rd series, vol. 97, col. 122.
[ii] The Post-American World, And the rise of the rest, Fareed Zakaria, Penguin books, 2009, pg 179
[iii] See, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2115167.ece