March 22, 2007 (the date of publication in Russian)
Alexander Eliseev
BRITANNIA: DREAMING OF NEW GLOBAL DOMINATION
A conspiracy theory scheme and real politics
THE EXPANSION OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Against the backdrop of the globally increasing disgust over the heavy but inefficient efforts of the United States to push its political and military agenda, Great Britain's geopolitical stock is spectacularly gaining weight. After years of a subordinate role in global policy, the British Commonwealth, encompassing 53 countries with a population of 1.8 billion, is going to expand. The initiative of enlargement was recently announced by the Commonwealth's General Secretary Don McKinnon, and approved by Queen Elisabeth II. New candidates for membership include Rwanda, Yemen, Somali and astoundingly, Israel (where this possibility is admitted, though the official request hasn't yet been filed).
Traditionally, London splits over a new foreign policy initiative. In particular, prominent historian Andrew Roberts expresses skepticism over the enlargement plans. "Before accepting new members, we should consider the possible implications", the maitre says. "In order to be admitted to the British Commonwealth of Nations, a nation ought to have at least a loose, maybe just historical connection with the British Crown, as well as to have adopted the political culture of Anglophonic peoples. The candidate countries don’t fit these parameters, with the exception for Israel".
It is true that Rwanda, Yemen and Somali are not much related to the "culture of Anglophonic peoples". Israel's connection with the British Crown is ambiguous as well. The British Government was opposed to the foundation of the Israeli state. Still, McKinnon's proposal suggests that Great Britain is preparing for a new imperial offensive, exceeding the traditional sphere of its influence.
Can the formerly greatest naval and financial power win back the global leading role in the changing world, regaining the status it enjoyed before World War I?
The United States, once blessed by the United Kingdom for accepting the role of the leading superpower, is in a much weakened shape nowadays. Having stuck in Iraq, the US military machine is likely to encounter even more serious problems in a campaign against Iran. Engaging into a multitude of offensive strategies across the globe, Washington has overlooked an upheaval of strong resistance in its previously well-controlled rear of Latin America.
The post-Cold War victory euphoria has played a bad trick with Washington. Getting used to an exceptional role in the world, the United States found itself unprepared to multi-polar resistance to its policies. Having once yielded the whole burden of global competition with the Soviet system to Washington, the United Kingdom used this advantage for a serious re-organization of its own imperial design. In the post-colonial era, Britain managed to avoid political tensions in its tradition zone of influence – as compared with France, which faced a long-time and hard warfare in Indo-China and Algeria.
The doom of the American Empire may turn a revival of the British Empire. This hypothesis echoes the view, expressed by a number of American political experts, indicating an active and often unfavorable influence of British elite families on Washington's policy. These concerns are typical for the writings of US economist and political scientist Lyndon LaRouche, widely published in Russia. Mr. LaRouche and his co-thinkers believe that the so-called British-American Community (BAC) intentionally imposes its own far-reaching and essentially hostile strategy on Washington, using powerful levers of corporate influence.
A SUBTLE REVENGE?
The United Kingdom has got weighty historical grounds for an intention of revenge. The memory of the times when the British Empire dominated in today's French zone of influence, and kept control over its then-colonies in North America, is definitely alive.
A number of crucial facts of the last century's history indicate that Britain has never given up its plans of strategic revival. On June 15, 1940, Prime Minister Winston Churchill officially proposed unification of Britain and France (the project was prepared by Jean Monnet, the president of the Franco-British Committee). In case the plan was approved, the post-war France might have been subordinated to the British Crown.
According to diplomatic documentation, declassified only in January 2007, plans of Anglo-French unification were resumed in 1956. This option was discussed in the exchange of letters between Prime Minister Anthony Eden and his French colleague Guy Mollet, who accepted the idea of the reign of the British Queen over France. A more "moderate" proposal suggested France's membership in the British Commonwealth.
Curiously, right at that time Britain allied with France and Israel in a war against Egypt, after its leadership undertook nationalization of the Suez Canal. This controversy was used for their own interests by both of the bitter enemies, the USSR and the United States.
Today, Britain is going to use the same mechanism of the Commonwealth for regaining influence in it former colonies, but not only. There is some evidence of London's efforts to increase its presence in Algeria. It is noteworthy that descendants from Algeria comprise a large part of the French population.
"EURABIA": TO FEAR, OR TO STEER?
According to a popular view, London is facing serious problems with immigrants from the "third world" – as well as other European countries. Polls indicate that Moslem expats in Britain are even less integrated into the secular state system than in France. Foreign Affairs magazine reports that the majority of Moslems, residing in France, has absorbed French cultural standards and eagerly supports republican values, including the secular character of statehood, while in Britain, 81% of the Islamic diaspora regard themselves as "firstly Moslem, and secondly British".
Nevertheless, massive riots of immigrants take place in Paris and not in London, and involve exactly the communities, sharing the French Republic's secular values. Why does that happen? Could this phenomenon reflect the perception of France by a large number of immigrants as the land of their own, which they would like to meet their cultural standards? Exactly this desire may generate disaccord, elevating often to a revolutionary dimension.
Imagine a new eruption of this sentiment of the scale of autumn 2005, encompassing not only France but also a number of other countries of continental Europe. In this case, Britain will be able not only to avoid unrest but to steer the destructive elements of its own Islamic community outside to the other bank of the La Manche. This is not a problem for London, which had been serving for decades as a safe haven for all kinds of émigré Islamic organizations.
One could expect London to derive benefit both from the looming breakdown of the US foreign policy and from the increasing Islamization of Europe (in France, the Moslem community exceeding today 5 million people). In this way, London may regain its leading role, and even increase its global influence through financial and related economic advantages.
A number of top EU officials, trying to impose political pressure upon the British establishment, obviously foresee this prospect. For instance, Luis Moreno Ocampo, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, who recently claimed that British PM Tony Blair is to bear personal responsibility for military atrocities in Iraq. Blair is mentioned prior to George W. Bush, despite the obviously greater role of Washington in the outrages of the intervention.
The Prosecutor's statement may reflect concerns that the United Kingdom may try to escape responsibility for the military adventure in the Middle East, for which Washington pays a major toll not only in the loss of reputation but also in the number of casualties. London, which energetically encouraged the White House for an intervention in Iraq in 2003, is likely to reject any involvement in an assault on Iran.
ALBION'S ACHILLES HEEL
The prospects of Great Britain's imperial revival are still not quite alluring. London faces a number of domestic problems, primarily emerging from regional ethnicism. According to ICM's poll, ordered by The Sunday Telegraph, 52% of the Scotland's population favors Scotch independence. The decline of Blair's popularity, as well as the uncertainty around the royal succession, sparks the separatist sentiment in Scotland and Wales, which have their own, though legally restricted parliaments.
Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party, views Scotland's independence as a close perspective. He declares the oncoming May elections "historical", stressing that Scotland's move for independence is accelerated by Blair himself , whom he blames for "dragging" the UK into a bloody warfare in the Mideast, along with modernization of Trident nuclear complexes and a "ten-year dictate from London".
The Guardian’s authors admit a cheerless scenario: "During the first one hundred days after the elections in Scotland, the nationalists may demand complete control over the North Sea oil reserves, an independent state service, and thus pave the way to political independence".
The United Kingdom, as well as every country, has got its weak points which may "unfold" under a certain combination of historical circumstances. In the changing world, the future of the "misty Albion" is not more lucid than the prospects of the whole Western civilization.
Number of shows: 1176
ENG 
