The FINANCIAL — Professor Vernon Raymond, my lecturer in Economics and International Relations at Harvard, wrote a classic some thirty years ago titled “In Defence of the National Interest”.
A book which mainly dealt with the position of the United States in the global economy and her need to maintain its leadership.
The book subtly dealt with the US policies to rationalise a number of initiatives, both political and economic, mainly in the oil rich Middle East, some of which seemed not in tandem with international law and ethics. The need for global dominance by the United States, both in terms of politics and economy, was seen for a long time, as a reasonable proposition and one which helped other nations to advance technologically and prosper, while helping those nations to build a more open and democratic societies.
The defence of national interests has always been and is the main tenet and the operative code for nations which have their own unique languages, culture, traditions, mores, politics and economy. And it seems that the ethos of protecting the nation had worked well. There have however been an emergence of group power rather than individual nation power in recent years. The European Union, the Association of South East Nations, The Arab League, The African Union are examples of such a phenomenon and they were aimed at greater coalition of intelligent interests based on geographical and some cultural common grounds. They all do serve a valid cause of social, political and economic integration.
European Union was a brilliant idea which has taken so many years from the Maastricht Treaty to evolve to what it is today. European Union still remains a strong fortress of commonalities among very varied nations and has ensured the application of very high standards of political and economic behaviour from its members. EU created the Euro zone both as a powerful means of increasing and consolidating European business and as the foundation for a political union which bound the member nations to common goals and enhanced performances in every sphere of life.
There was however one continuing, and unresolved issue: Britain and its non-participation in the Euro. Britain was an empire for many years, with large number of colonies and the Commonwealth of nations in which the British flag flew and which made Britain a unique country of economic and political power. It also has English as a universal language, has a monarchy much admired by the British and the citizens of the former colonies, a large population, and the city of London, a financial powerhouse and one of the most vibrant cities in the world.
As I write this column, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Germany’s Angela Merkel are about to meet. The Euro crisis has brought about sharp differences between the British and the Europeans, mainly the Germans and the French. At the heart of the long standing irritation is the role of Britain within the European Union where, though Britain is a critical and important part of the Union, it has always wanted to be an “island” in Europe, separated by the English Channel, by its language and culture and above all its currency, the Great British Pound. The British have always felt sharply different from their European counterparts and the British psyche has always been that Britain is a continent by itself.
The Great British Pound has been a very strong currency during the last several years, but its value began to slide sharply with the emergence of the financial and economic crisis, first in the United States, kick-started by the ruinous sub-prime mortgages and the rising national debt levels, and then in Europe, with key European nations going belly-up with mountains of sovereign debts. The current situation in Europe and the Euro crisis, as for the British, is also a total irritation which they say is contributing to the problems in Britain. British argue that their non-adoption of the Euro as a currency for Britain is based on sound economic fundamentals which dictate that Euro cannot hold its strength across a 17 countries with very different levels of economic growth and very different levels of sovereign governance. They now say their arguments have been amply validated with the financial and economic crisis in which there seems to be hardly any real solution.
Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, have been piloting the deals to save the Euro and the European polity, and have continuously suggested that Britain, which is very much part of the European Union, have stood by and watched the drama unfold without supporting European efforts in any meaningful way. In essence, there is a strong feeling among the British that Euro will not survive and that it was best not to interfere with the European politics on any issue related to any bail-out plans. Behind the scenes, there have been some strong criticism by the French-German Sarkozy-Merkel duo of British attitudes. Sarokozy is quoted as saying that it is better for David Cameron to shut up instead of offering platitudes.
The British stand has been firm: the nation will not put its finances and its economy in jeopardy by doling out any money to the European countries who have mis-managed the Euro and their economies. The troubles they have, as for the British, are of their making, and they need to sort them out. Deep in the British psyche is the feeling that it is better for those countries to leave the Euro zone and look after their welfare in the way they deem it fit. On the other hand, Both Merkel and Sarkozy are bitter that Britain continues to play a double-faced game of admonishing Europeans to find the quickest solution to the crisis and not offering to help in any substantial manner.
Britain’s position is simple: its first priority is to defend its nation against any financial and economic turmoil. Britain was the first to drive all the austerity measures, much against a rebellious public and take the decision to push cost-cutting measures. Britain feels now that it is on a winning wicket, that the austerity measures are working and that the only way other faltering nations in Europe can survive is to ensure deeper cuts in spending are in place and that the habit of squandering wealth among idle and expanded public services be gone forever.
Crisis often brings up long-hidden and long-forgotten differences. Britain as a nation distinct from the rest of Europe, in its culture and approaches, seems to become sharper by the day as Britain defends itself and refuses to be dragged into providing bailout funds. There is obvious animosity toward the British attitudes and decisions over its policy of distancing itself from the euro crisis, but one would argue that Britain may indeed not really see any major benefit, other than being just being part of a club of nations. British ties are most certainly stronger with the United States of America than with the collection of different and diverse nations, within perhaps a somewhat artificial political entity called European Union.
Discussion about this post