Europe is once again divided between East and West — only this time the fault line runs through the EU. The eastern members — most notably Poland and the Baltic states — are clinging fast to the EU in the face of Russian aggression. At the other geographic and political extreme, Britain is threatening to walk out on Europe for good. Decisions being taken today on Europe’s eastern and western peripheries are likely to shape a new balance of power.
It is not difficult to imagine Europe after a British withdrawal: A French-German axis in control, Russia empowered, the US bypassing a now-weakened Britain, pro-EU Scotland threatening once again to leave the UK, and England turning inward as Euroskeptics convince themselves that Britain is always strongest when alone.
Given the effects of UK Euroskepticism so far, no crystal ball is needed to foresee the impact on Britain of withdrawal from the EU.
As former European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso put it in December last year: “I’ve never seen in all my years in the European Council…a big country as isolated as Britain.”
Indeed, the UK is now a fringe player in deciding a European growth strategy; marginal to trade debates that it used to lead; and, despite being a big lender, almost irrelevant to the future of Greece. Although Britain was a signatory of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukrainian independence, only France and Germany attend any serious negotiations.
British ministers want it both ways: “Russia must be countered by even greater European unity,” they say. “But, by the way, we may be leaving.”
Former US secretary of state Dean Acheson — an architect of NATO and the Marshall Plan — famously said that Britain in the 20th century lost an empire and never found a new international role. In the 21st century, Britain could lose Europe and find itself once again without a role in the world.
TAKE A BACK SEAT
The price of exit would be enormous, putting at risk three million jobs, 25,000 companies, annual exports worth £200 billion (US$294.89 billion) and £450 billion of inward investment. Moreover, London’s unique role in bringing together the full range of financial services that serve the continent — the City is home to 250 global banks with 160,000 employees and accounts for 80 percent of Europe’s hedge funds, 78 percent of its foreign-exchange trades, 74 percent of its derivatives and 57 percent of its private equity — would be jeopardized as well.
There is little evidence to support the Eurosceptic argument that EU regulations hobble British trade outside of Europe. On the contrary, substantial extra-EU trade and investment opportunities would be lost were Britain to leave, and their claim that a non-European Britain could effortlessly retain the EU’s benefits while ditching its burdens is simply not credible.
Consider the Euroskeptics’ favorite examples, Norway and Switzerland. The Norwegians must pay 2 billion euros (US$2.1 billion) a year for access to European markets. Switzerland, like Norway, must take a back seat to the EU Commission when trade and investment decisions are made.
The world’s largest economy, the US, needs the North American Free Trade Agreement, and Southeast Asia’s rising economies need ASEAN. Likewise, Britain — which at its peak generated nearly 20 percent of world economic activity but is soon set to account for no more than 2.5 percent — is much stronger as a part of Europe. EU membership strengthens the UK’s competitiveness by enabling it to negotiate the best deals on trade, tax rules, patents, money laundering, corruption, and security with China, India and the rest of the world.
However, economic arguments alone are not likely to be enough to persuade a Britain that, in the late journalist and political columnist Hugo Young’s words, is caught between the past it cannot forget and the future it cannot avoid. According to this view, British ambivalence toward Europe might reflect a persistent inability to leave behind the days of imperial grandeur.
HUMAN FACE
Nonetheless, economic insecurity — owing to the rapid pace and, at times, destructiveness of the global economy — evidently is driving much of the public’s nostalgia for British sovereignty. Millions of Britons long for someone or something to protect them from the seemingly alien forces that threaten to steal their livelihoods.
This fear has found its voice in the anti-European UK Independence Party (UKIP), which has risen in opinion polls by converting economic discontent into a culture war in which foreigners and immigrants — and, indeed, Europe as a whole — are the enemy. Britain, UKIP’s leaders and supporters believe, is not the Britain they once knew.
Although economic statistics must be part of the argument for Europe, such data would not convince those who fear that Britain is becoming a foreign country. Nor will it be enough to recall the historic benefits of engagement and Britain’s distinguished centuries-old role in ensuring that no nation ever gained sole mastery of Europe.
What needs to be said is this: Britain is at its best when it sees itself as a leader in Europe. Just as Britain once led Europe in fighting fascism, supporting democratic aspirations and charting the continent’s response to the global recession of 2008, it should be inside Europe leading from the front ranks.
The Britain that has always championed liberty, tolerance and social responsibility should be ready once again to lead a progressive movement, spearheading action to fight climate change, resist protectionism and encourage sustainable growth. It must lead in mobilizing Europe to make the global economy work for people, protecting them from injustice and inequity. Globalization needs a human face, and the face of modern Britain can provide it.
Some say that the best way to secure European reform is to threaten to leave. My experience is that Britain does best when it works to bring people together, set the agenda, promote its values and champion change. It is then that Britain can channel its unforgettable past while embracing its unavoidable future.
Gordon Brown is UN special envoy for global education and a former British prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath