Last week David Cameron had what a lot of
people are calling a ‘Love Actually’ moment. Dmitry Peskov, a Putin press aide,
purportedly dismissed Britain as a small island that no one pays any attention
to and, in response, David Cameron launched into a passionate defence, citing
One Direction and Shakespeare as evidence of Britain’s past and present
glory. This has resulted in a bit of
soul searching on the part of the British media and a reflection on where
Britain really stands on the international stage.
Despite Cameron’s florid prose, it’s a
pretty undeniable fact that Britain’s importance and influence as an
international power has significantly waned since the World Wars. During the
Second World War, Britain accumulated huge debts while maintaining an imperial
policy that was well beyond its means. Keeping large-scale military presences
in the Middle and Far East pushed Britain into economic disaster domestically,
increasing Britain’s dependence on the economic juggernaut that was the US. The
Suez Crisis, an Anglo-French intervention in response to Nasser’s
nationalisation of the Suez Canal Company, is often cited as a key indication
of how delicate Britain’s financial situation had become and how much Britain
depended on US support. The US was against action in Egypt and Britain was
pushed to the brink of financial collapse as a result of the intervention.
Britain’s decline is, of course, in no way
unique. The Mongol Empire, the largest contiguous land empire in human history,
crumbled due to wars of succession between the grandchildren of Genghis Khan. In
the 14th century, China was the world forerunner in science,
mathematics and engineering. Yet by the early Ming period a form of technical
stagnation had set in. China abandoned maritime ventures in the 1420s, just
when the European powers were starting to explore the world and establish the
empires that still shape the world today.
So if Dmitry Peskov’s comments sting, at
least we can take solace in the fact that we are not unique in our decline. And
yet, when looking at the relatively recent decline of Britain (and Europe in
general), I can’t help but think that there is, perhaps, something
different this time around. When the Roman Empire collapsed, despite the Romans'
innovation in infrastructure, politics and intellectual thought, Europe was pushed into a period of intellectual deterioration and economic regression. This
has clearly not happened this time (although I guess it could just be a matter
of time).
While Europe’s importance has diminished,
the influence of her history, her legal systems and her political theory are
still unavoidably evident in the world today. The framework of international
relations, the schemas with which we understand the political world, have been
forged by the centuries-long dominance of the European powers over the rest of
the world. These conceptual frameworks dictate how we think about the world and
how states interact with other on the international state.
Democracy was originally just a name for
the form of government devise by Kleisthenes in Athens. By the time of the
French Revolution, it has accrued a deeper meaning and was linked to a number
of political values such as liberty, equality and justice. Now, it is widely
considered the only really plausible or legitimate form of government.
Similarly, the Human Rights Agenda, so often invoked in discussions of the
recent violence against civilian in Egypt and Syria, was born out of the European
Natural Rights tradition. The words we use to describe, and the concepts we use
to understand, the world around us are largely rooted in the European
intellectual tradition.
So Britain may very well be a small nation that no one pays any attention to. But when the US is arguing with Russia over the fate of Syria, it is doing so using the terminology, the legal framework and the international organisations that wouldn’t exist without Britain’s centuries of global dominance.
NB: this article argues that Europe and Britain are still influential conceptually and legally despite their waning importance on the world stage. This article doesn't look at whether or not that influence is a good thing. If you're interested in that though, here's some good places to look:
Fraser A (2005) Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Now Who Calls the Shots?
Ake C (1993) The Unique Case of African Democracy
---
No comments:
Post a Comment