There is a reason why I had to spend some time thinking about a potential European response to a threat from the USA over Greenland in the latter part of last week, which is reflected in a blog post published this morning. That was because, over a couple of days, I was in discussion with the BBC about whether I would participate in a Sunday morning television broadcast on the politics of this issue, before being told that I had been dropped from the discussion, I think because the nature of the discussion itself changed late on Friday afternoon.
It would seem that someone in the BBC had noticed my argument that defence spending makes no sense unless a decision has been made as to what a country is defending, which is a theme to which I return this morning, and which I stressed was, in my opinion, a precondition for the political support within the communities of Europe for a common defence strategy if that is what is going to be required now.
I cannot be sure whether my more conceptual position was why I was dropped, when the initial approach was to discuss whether additional defence expenditure was affordable, with the seemingly inevitable contrast with spending on care being made as the alternative that had to be cut, or whether I had just failed to focus sufficiently on that one sole point.
Either way, I make the point that somebody at least noticed, and that forced me to think about an issue in a way that I might otherwise not have done quite so clearly, with this morning's blog post now being the sole outcome, although I am not entirely regretting that. I now realise that we have many more options available than I might otherwise have thought, especially when it comes to territorial rights, where, let's be clear, we do hold some of the power, not just in the UK, but in many other parts of Europe as well.
However, as I note in that post, the real question is: will Europe have the courage to act? That is something to which I have no answer at present.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think that we are all beginning to understand how your work ethic might run into problems with the pace of change in world affairs. Be that as it may, you are still thinking about things not considered by the MSM, so no harm done?
For me, when the world becomes unstable, you need to choose your allies carefully. I then look at the out of touch way in which we are currently ruled and I fear that it is my children who will face the consequences. My distrust is boosted by how expansionist capitalist and market objectives have been adopted by the corrupted state. This goes right to the heart of if we have to fight a war, who and what is it for?
Trumps aggression is bound to cause offence to both Russia but especially China whom they are baiting and waiting to destroy using their vast military capacity in the South China sea that they built up after WW II. If Greenland falls to the U.S., then that might be a flash point. However, I would not put it past China and Russia to come up with a ruse to get around that.
At the end of the day, all Trump is doing is fast tracking and thus reifying what has always been U.S. policy abroad – America First.
The U.S. is not a shining city on the hill – it never has been (although there is still a lot to admire), and democracy has ceased to function there since the 2010 ruling on political donations, if not before. Added to this is U.S. interference in domestic politics of other continents since the end of WW II which is well documented (once the UK was out of the way at least). America will not change in my view however, until we start to disengage with it. We need to cold shoulder it and if necessary start to have the UN and NATO etc meet away from America. The World Bank too if necessary – a message needs to be sent out.
I still think that we are defending peace in Europe at least – the politics of care needs to embrace peace.
At the moment Plan A is all about Trumps’ reign blowing over and back to normal but what is Plan B given the resources at his disposal?
Thanks
“will Europe have the courage to act? ”
Lots of options. Assorted US tech companies & their operations in the EU & UK. Amazon, nice warehouses you have there. US bases in Europe, not just their soldiers but families & equipment. US investments, KKR purchasing 50% of a UK off-shore wind farm, hmm, pity if that is confiscated. The operations of assorted predatory US financial orgs in London and other European countries. Pity if they all have to pack up & go home. US law companies (e.g. White & Case in Bx) – no longer able to operate. Denmark, Maersk, the largest shipping company on the planet, all those containers going to the USA, or not. On and on it goes.
Bullies, the only way to stop them is confrontation. Some will argue “rule of law” & I agree between two parties that have equal respect for the RoL. When one of the parties doesn’t then no-rules apply.
The USA needs Europe for “force-projection”. No Europe, no force projection. Sure, they have the largest navy, but it still needs to provision, good luck with that if, e.g. every port in the Med’ is closed to it (apart from those in Israel). One thing for sure, the time has long passed when ALL US forces in Europe (& the UK) should have been turfed out.
Your point is the rule of law requires reciprocity, and the US has withdrawn from that.
This is the issue.
It is just as important to analyse the nature of the threat.
And think about HOW we defend.
War, wrote Clausewitz, is the continuation of policy by other means. During the pandemic I re-visited the Cold War history including interventions in Asia.. So often I read what Americans said about the reasons for intervention and noted they gave little attention to what came next. Iraq is a classic case. Rumsfeld tore up the Pentagon plan for the occupation which inevitably resulted in chaos. Maybe Afghanistan too. They focused on the military.
Not all the ‘how’ is military. One example is Putin’s December 2021 treaty proposals which would have neutralised Eastern Europe leaving him with the ability to dominate as he does in Belarus. It was accompanied by hybrid warfare including bots on social media trying to undermine aid for Ukraine, to get the US out of Europe, and, more recently, promote division with anti-immigrant ‘patriotic’ websites. It could have gained him a foreign policy victory without firing a shot. He probably has understood Clausewitz. Dictatorships need those sort of ‘victories’ to maintain power -esp. as living standards often don’t increase. I think that could apply to Trump as well. Their enemy is not just abroad.
Europe is by comparison a democratic area with welfare states. It is a rival model and as such we pose a threat. We don’t make ourselves safer by diluting it at their behest.
Much to agree with.
Think Barbara Castle foresaw much of this …lack of care.
1947 .
We were right when we said that the terms of the American loan were unnecessarily harsh, and that if they had been resisted those terms would have had to be improved.
she spotted and called out Blair as a venal narcissist she would have done likewise with Trump
Guardian
Barbara Castle.
‘Echoing recent claims that Mr Blair has become bored by domestic issues, leaving the field to chancellor Gordon Brown, Lady Castle comments: “If you think he’s going to be satisfied for very long with just a stage the size of Britain you’re wrong.
“I think he is a presidential type. He is not a democratic prime minister of the British type that we’re used to, having to work through parliament and cabinet.”
He wants his way “and the biggest stage possible”, Lady Castle goes on, and would take advantage of any opportunity in Europe “or even in the States”.
Bang on.
And on Greed is Good / Neoliberalism 2000
‘That is why after the great giveaway budget of 1988 under Margaret Thatcher there was at first a great boom. House prices went up, everybody said, “Ooh, I’m going to get rich.” It seemed like it, and for a time one or two people did, but then they suddenly ran up the biggest balance of payments deficit in our history. Appalling. We were not putting the wages or the money on investment into the industries to which our mass of people would want to turn, and the money was going. By accumulating, 5 percent of the richest people got 40 percent of Nigel Lawson’s giveaway budget in 1988, and they didn’t spend it on our own industries but on foreign luxuries. So our country became poorer [and] there was less investment in the sources of our own wealth. It was the beginning of the race of globalization where [the feeling is that] it doesn’t matter that you don’t shop at home, that it’s not cool enough at home. It’s not chic. You go abroad. We had the most terrible balance of payments debt, and a huge rise in unemployment and bankruptcies of firms. I know because many of them appealed to us MPs to protect them from the government. That’s what eventually brought Margaret Thatcher’s downfall.
Perhaps the best PM we never had?
She was a genuine firebrand, and was deeply clearsighted, but remember unions brough her down in ’68.