It is a five-minute walk from the Houses of Parliament in London to the spot where Great Britain was last at its greatest.
Squeezed between the Treasury and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a discreet set of steps leads down to a bunker complex that served as Winston Churchill’s underground command center during World War II.
It is here that the country’s most vaunted prime minister, the War Cabinet and chiefs of staff worked and slept, sifted intelligence, plotted campaigns and ultimately helped turn the tide of the war against Nazi Germany.
Illustration: Yusha
What Churchill famously referred to as Britain’s finest hour is invoked nostalgically in the UK among those pressing to leave the EU. However, as another deadline to depart the EU comes and goes, the prolonged uncertainty over Britain’s future is instead bringing out the worst of the British character on both sides of the Brexit divide.
The animosity threatens the most bitter election campaign in memory over the next six weeks as delivering or preventing Brexit become ideologies in themselves.
The normalization of bellicose language directed at opponents both at home and abroad suggests the postwar model of a liberal, internationalist Britain has had its day.
Instead, slurs are directed at Ireland for not bowing to British demands. There are threats to withhold money due to the EU. Cooperation with member states on security matters is seen as a bargaining chip.
Even as some politicians try to calm the rhetoric in the House of Commons, the public has gone the other way. Whether it is death threats to members of Parliament, marches in London or radio phone-ins and the BBC’s flagship Question Time show, the impression now is of a nation bristling with Brexit-induced aggression.
At least two MPs — Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sporty Nicky Morgan and former Conservative Heidi Allen — cited abuse for doing their job when announcing they would stand down and not contest the election.
Majorities in England, Scotland and Wales told the Future of England Survey released on Oct. 24 that violence toward MPs was a “price worth paying” to achieve their Brexit aims.
Shaken by his survey’s findings, Cardiff University politics professor Richard Wyn Jones said that “further polarization could be a deliberate campaign strategy for some parties.”
In Northern Ireland, the police chief has warned of the prospect of public disorder because of loyalist outrage at what they regard as a weakening of ties to the rest of the UK as a result of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s renegotiated deal with the EU.
Britain, of course, is no stranger to violence. Whether it is building a global empire or pub fights between rival soccer fans, there has always been an edge to the national psyche.
However, it has also been a magnet for immigrants with a reputation for tolerance. The first purpose-built mosque, for example, came in the late 19th century.
It is the ugly side that is dominating now, though. More than three years on from the 2016 referendum, the language of Brexit has become more deliberately confrontational.
Johnson, who said he would “rather be dead in a ditch” than request an extension to the Oct. 31 departure date, blames the “zombie Parliament” for frustrating his bid to quit the EU.
He refers to opposition surrender to Europe and accuses Parliament of holding the country “hostage.”
Challenged, Johnson dismissed concerns over his language as “humbug.”
The pro-Brexit press routinely labels lawmakers and judges traitors, while the campaign group “Leave.EU” made an explicit link between Brexit and the war in a Twitter post this month that referred to Chancellor Angela Merkel as a “Kraut.”
It shrugged off the ensuing storm and deleted the tweet.
There are real world consequences: The risk is that the UK would alienate allies just when it needs them most — to sign trade deals, to grease international collaboration and, not least, to foster goodwill toward a middling power cutting loose from a bloc of 500 million people of which it has been a part since 1973.
“Britain’s reputation has obviously suffered,” Dublin City University political scientist Eoin O’Malley said, adding that here is “a breakdown of trust where normal diplomatic language is not being used.”
Nowhere outside Brussels has been the subject of as much righteous British anger as Ireland, with widespread incredulity that the Irish government could wield so much influence in the Brexit process.
Conservative lawmaker Priti Patel denied suggesting to a newspaper that the threat of food shortages in the event of a no-deal Brexit might encourage Ireland — which suffered devastating famine in the 19th century under British rule — to bend to the UK.
Patel said she had been quoted out of context and was promoted by Johnson to home secretary.
The vitriol is not all one way. A Twitter hashtag, the #BritsAreAtItAgain, has surfaced in Ireland, under which tweets are posted taking offense at all manner of supposed British sleights.
To O’Malley, the hashtag with its undertones of Ireland’s struggle for independence is evidence of an increase in anti-Britishness in response to Brexit.
Even with a December election on the horizon, “it’s hard to see a government in the UK in the near future that will benefit Britain or Ireland,” he said.
Indeed, there is a danger that Brexit is resetting Britain’s foreign relations to before the postwar reconciliation and European unity to an earlier time of great rivalry.
For Diane Purkiss, professor of English literature at Oxford University and a historian of the English Civil War, Brexit is triggering a return to imperial type.
With its pursuit of Brexit, Britain has “trashed its international reputation” and the government is now viewed in the same terms as “its colonies have always seen it,” she said.
“There’s a sense in which everywhere that Britain has actually ruled has long understood how difficult it is to negotiate with Britain, how difficult it is to be listened to by Britain and how arrogant and violent the British become when you try,” she said.
It is a set of circumstances that might have been familiar to Churchill.
Born in 1874, when Britain ruled a vast empire under Queen Victoria, he was adamant that everything should be done to maintain the UK’s status as an imperial power.
Celebrated as a visionary war leader in the UK, his image — and that of Britain — is far more controversial in those parts of the world that recall him for different reasons.
In Ireland, he deployed a brutal auxiliary force to suppress home rule. As secretary of state for the colonies in the 1920s, he implemented the British policy to carve up the Middle East, sowing the seeds of the Israel-Palestine dispute. He opposed Indian self-rule, accusing Mahatma Gandhi of being a “seditious fakir.”
Strolling down Whitehall past Downing Street and Britain’s grand offices of state, it is not hard to imagine the UK thriving free of the EU institutions that are so locked into the postwar politics of Berlin, Rome or Paris.
UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Dominic Raab said Britain wanted to be friends with Europe, but also “buccaneering global free traders,” he wrote in an article for the Sunday Telegraph published on Sept. 23.
The Foreign Office is itself a reminder of Britain’s former globalism. At the time of its opening in 1868, it housed the India Office, complete with lavish gilding, doors, furniture and a marble fireplace taken from the headquarters of the former East India Co, the original global free traders who employed a private army to appropriate the subcontinent’s wealth before the crown muscled in.
The chimney piece, dating from 1730, has a panel showing “Britannia, seated by the sea, receiving the riches of the East Indies.”
It is both an expression of Britain’s former global trading power and a reminder that it did not amass an empire by being nice to other nations.
What kind of image Britain might project post-Brexit is open to question. During the referendum campaign, Churchill’s biographer said that “sunlit meadows” would be ushered in by a vote to leave the EU. That was a play on Churchill’s “finest hour” speech in which he exhorted Britain and her allies to stand up to Hitler and “move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.”
“Get Brexit done” is now Johnson’s refrain. As he fights an election that is to be defined by Brexit, he might reflect on the fate of his hero: In 1945, having won the war, Churchill was voted out of office.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS