What the Special Relationship is not

While Britain and America tend to form a united front in our foreign policy, our constitutions and values are extremely different, and claiming they are the same is inappropriate.

The Special Relationship is presented by dubious minds at the forefront of British foreign policy, like Liz Truss, as if it represents some form of ideological hegemony based on values of freedom and democracy emanating from Washington. In reality, there is no such thing. We speak the same language, but the British state is actually more different from the United States than even the Russian state is.

The last time anyone checked, the United Tsardom of Russia did not still seem to have a tsar and a council of unelected barons who could impede their parliament's will. That, however, is what the United Kingdom still has.

The bureaucracy and the plutocracy

The idea that Britain has anything like the model of democracy in America is absurd. Countless things are considered acceptable in the US that are considered unacceptable in the UK, and vice versa. Take, for example, campaign funding and lobbying. The US has virtually no rules on that whatsoever, considering money to be speech and therefore any restriction on it to be a violation of freedom of speech, whereas the UK has rules. This makes the character of the two regimes completely different, to such a point that they could justifiably deny that each other are true democracies at all. If we were in a mood to quarrel, America would accuse the UK of stifling political opposition with bureaucratic red tape, while the UK would accuse America of being a plutocracy.

Another example is the freedom of speech itself. In the US, that is actually enshrined in the US Constitution as a protection for all speech, no matter how offensive - something Prince Harry referred to as "bonkers", to the consternation of Americans. In the UK, you have the freedom of conscience, but how you disrupt the lives of others with that freedom is very much restrained by the law. The government can't suppress someone's beliefs, but a citizen also can't just go out and offend people, as there are laws against it in Britain.

Then there is the right to bear arms. From a British perspective, this is an absolutely unacceptable, bizarre, and menacing idea. In most cases, even British police don't carry arms, while American police have tanks.

Acting on values would make the UK bash America

The point is, in an actual value-driven world, there are more than enough areas of violent disagreement on ideology and constitution for the UK and US to be sworn enemies, certainly not allies. The facts are enough to ridicule the notion that our coalition is somehow standing up for democratic values. Our own regimes and attitudes to governance are fundamentally different and incompatible with each other, to such an extent that we could completely deny each other's legitimacy as states and yet still be fully compliant with our values.

If the UK were to be a foreign policy adversary of the US, the latter would level a host of meaningful criticisms aimed chiefly at the monarchy and the House of Lords, decrying them as undemocratic features. Stock criticisms of the other regime are standard practice when the US has an opponent. Indeed, the UK maintains highly undemocratic vestiges, doing so for the sake of stability and tradition.

The 51st State

There have been reforms in the UK that appear to be aimed at making Britain more like America, such as the creation of a Supreme Court and calls for the abolition of the House of Lords. Whether the creation of the Supreme Court was for the best is not entirely clear, and there are fairly good arguments from both sides. However, British use of American nomenclature is arguably just superficial, aiming more to help maintain the illusion of a shared democratic culture than make it a reality.

On the other hand, considering how stable and reliable the UK's system had been for centuries, reforming is always a bad call. Healthy forms of conservatism rest on the assumption that there are certainly unknowns in revising anything, and that a stable and decent past provides sufficient grounds not to change things very much, even if we have no evidence that reform will go awry. A system that averts a brutish and short life is a good one, even if it is less democratic.

Most would agree that the UK can learn some good features from the US, and that the US can learn some good features from the UK, but it seems indisputable that the UK has a better system. The UK is not plagued by ideology, sectarianism and sedition, and does not have an overpowered executive branch.

UK system is just better

Countries that followed the Westminster system effectively maintained order even in some of the most historically conflict-prone regions of the world, while those that instead emulated the United States were prone to disorder. What the Special Relationship is not, is anything to do with actual constitutions or political values. The UK is quite different from the US as a regime, aside from the shared language.

The Special Relationship has only ever been a mutual attempt by the US and UK to manipulate the other and use the other as an instrument of one's own interests. The US sees the UK as an aircraft carrier off the shores of Europe, while the UK still sees the US as a youthful successor to the British Empire.

Read More »

Could Britain exit NATO?

As with the exit from the European Union, could Britain exit other major international organisations, in particular NATO?

Exiting NATO is considered unacceptable within British politics, and even the ex-leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn seems to have been pressured to abandon that stance before he had any chance at becoming Prime Minister, which ultimately failed anyway. Most Brits support the Alliance.

The exit process

Discussion about a country leaving NATO has mostly focused on Turkey lately, due to its policy clashes with multiple member states including Greece, France and even the US. It is noted that while the organisation has everything in place for letting countries in, there is no process for expulsion.

The process for exiting NATO voluntarily by a member state seems simple enough. It requires diplomatic correspondence with the United States, followed by a one year transition period. If the UK wanted to leave, it is an easy process.

It should be noted that the organisation's founding document (Article XIII) treats the Alliance as temporary, suggesting a 20-year duration, placing no importance in maintaining it. The Alliance, however, is now maintained by a fandom of unilateralists who see it as a marvellous superhero organisation battling against evil, evidently disappointed with the United Nations, the constraints of international law, or any grasp of reality.

The Leave Movement

The virtues of NATO for security were cited by Leave campaigners during the campaign for Brexit, as a reason the EU wasn't needed for keeping the country safe. Considering this, they aren't likely to take on the cause of exiting NATO now that they are done with the EU. In fact, Leave campaigners claimed they were helping NATO by undermining the EU, seen as a rival institution in European defence.

The Eurosceptic movement was originally not taken very seriously by opponents in the UK, but support grew, and it drew very prominent politicians who were able to attract even more interest in it. Those who want to exit NATO are not taken seriously now, but someone similar to Nigel Farage might hypothetically be able to pull it off. We know of Farage's alignment with Donald Trump, who is a sceptic of NATO, but Farage himself is a certainly a NATO fan.

However, the question remains: why exit NATO? There were numerous complaints about the EU negatively affecting people in Britain, that could be spun into a narrative of the country being subverted and undermined by a foreign yoke. This helped to stimulate Brexit. However, there is no such tale be told about NATO. We maintain a nuclear arsenal as a country and are a major military player and ally of the US. Simply exiting NATO would not affect those stances or make us less of a target for a hypothetical aggressor, and in fact may make us more vulnerable, because NATO membership could be helping to deter some forms of attack.

No point

The main thing to consider about another Brexit, this time from NATO, is that there is no point. There are significant perks of membership, no consequences or expulsion process for failing to meet one's commitments, and less spending on defence is necessary when compared to being an independent military power.

A country should remain within NATO even if it regards the alliance with scorn and has no intentions of coming to anyone's aid. Everything is on offer that could encourage you to stay, even if you don't want to.

The core of NATO

In the case of Britain, no political conversation needs to be had about NATO. The very nucleus of NATO is the coalition, or Special Relationship, of our country with America. That's really how NATO started.

One could withdraw from NATO as a snub to Atlanticists and pro-American warmongers within British politics, but why? They would not be going anywhere. Their lifelong cradling and nursing of Americans and love of their culture would not be forgotten by these idolaters, if they simply walk out of the NATO door. If anything, we would see even more aggressive stances taken in support of American foreign policy, and without a formal framework to create some restraint, by those who worship the Americans.

The only way to break it

The British-American alliance exists independently of NATO and is reinforced by extensive cooperation between both countries' armed forces. In addition, the cultural and linguistic connection is essential to the Special Relationship. The foreign policy thought and practice of the two countries are entirely intertwined and inseparable, with British diplomats and jurists more devoted to justifying American actions than their own.

To break these things would be a multigenerational process, but it could be inevitable. An increasing and potentially politically decisive Muslim minority in Britain is likely to favour disengagement from aggressive American foreign policy, considering the catastrophe it brought their fellow Muslims.

Absent the long way described above, there are only two ways the British-American coalition could be eliminated quickly: (1) a major historic dispute or incident making the British realise the Americans are traitorous, offensive and unworthy as allies and resulting in numerous condemnations being uttered by British politicians, and (2) the final depreciation and end of the British Armed Forces (possibly aided by Scottish independence or further breakup of the UK) at which point the Americans themselves no longer call on us to aid them or find us to be worthy allies.

How to be an anti-NATO Brit

NATO is inessential and possibly results in a confused course, steering British military power away from the country's national interests and into unnecessary conflicts started by Americans. It diminishes Britain's interest in the welfare of the Commonwealth of Nations, where we have actual moral debts, cultural ties, and civilisational commitments. There are valid reasons to abandon the Atlanticist obsession.

As valid as the above criticism of NATO may be, it is never a good idea to just swim against the tide of popular opinion, no matter how dull or foolish such opinion may seem. One must instead only give lacklustre support to NATO, and show a lack of enthusiasm towards it.

The best role one can take as an opponent of what NATO represents in the UK, whether simply trying to convince people or seeking political office, would be to mention NATO as a good and stable thing when talking of foreign policy. Mentioning continued NATO commitments is an effective way of throwing a bone to the Atlanticists without actually doing anything.

Membership of NATO can be cited when trying to cut defence spending, as well, since we can point to collective defence and the many buffer states between us and any adversary. One might consider asking the Americans to reform NATO. We could request to reduce the 2% of GDP required to go to defence, asking instead to spend 1% due our lack of proximity to an adversary, and see how the US deals with that. Or we could just reduce spending anyway, since the organisation has no expulsion process or sanctions mechanism to punish the UK with. The UK has no adjacent adversary and is surrounded by allies or neutral parties, making internal policing far more important than force projection abroad.

Read More »