Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The sun is rising in the East

2

Comments

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    The Chinese model of buying up Africa does not require military power, simply economic power and a willingness to deal with local regimes.

    The Chinese are reasonably comfortable with one party kleptocracies like Zim and Angola, but also able to work well in more democratic countries like Zambia. Not always popular, with poor labour practices, but the Zambian Copperbelt is looking prosperous again.
    Yes, it does require a blue water navy (which is precisely why China is building one). Overseas investment on that scale, and the absolute criticality of the products from Africa to the Chinese economy, need protecting. It has to be able to ensure that the goods will arrive. Only a blue water navy can do that.

    It also needs an on-the-ground presence in Africa so that it can, if necessary, intervene to protect its assets and its people. "Buying up Africa" works fine until a regime either decides to do something silly, or loses control. At that point, you need guns.
    Where has the Chinese Red army deployed abroad other than Korea in 1950?

    Where have the Chinese interfered with military force in protection of overseas commercial interests, apart from against Somali pirates?

    The Chinese see the South China Sea as their patch, not unreasonably.

    Tibet, India, Vietnam

  • Mr. B2, I'm not sure to what extent this is still true, but some years ago I read that Chinese firms operating in Africa tended to import a Chinese workforce, so employment numbers in the region didn't increase as much as might be expected. That said, improvements to transport infrastructure obviously benefit everyone.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,082

    RoyalBlue said:

    An outstanding piece by David Herdson. It's worth noting that African countries may do at least as well out of China's rise in Africa as the Chinese do.

    If they've learned from our historical experience, the Chinese shouldn't expect to be liked for the part they're playing.

    The Chinese will not be bothered by that even a little bit. They are entirely pragmatic and have no interest in making friends with anyone, as long as they can get what they need. That said, the Chinese did not conquer Africa by force, divide it up into colonial constructs that bore little reality to tribal boundaries established over millennia or sell millions of Africans into slavery, so maybe have less grounds to worry about being liked or disliked.

    This is why I do not view Chinese involvement in Africa with horror as some seem to. Looking at their involvement in place like Botswana, Mozambique and Malawi it seems to me to be far more benign than previous colonial and neo-colonial efforts in the region.
    True. We do of course live in different times. Nevertheless these countries are likely to become economically dependent on China, and politics generally follows the money.
  • kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. L, the way the aid budget has a floor we need to spend it and, in the past, this means splurging on any old thing to meet the magical target number which means the UK Government can feel self-satisfied about how virtuous it is.

    There's no evil in making a profit and doing so by enriching a poorer nation and helping lift its people out of poverty. It's a perfect example of benevolent capitalism.

    And, because it's aid not 'trade', we keep Liam Fox away from Zimbabwe.

    If we didn't have a ring-fenced foreign aid budget I'd likely agree with you.

    Nevertheless with China and Russia actively promoting their interests overseas, retreating into isolationism like Trump appears to want cannot be a sensible reaction. Brexit will probably lead us down the same course, because of the myriad domestic problems it will cause, despite all the tosh about being open to the world.
    I was talking to an old friend at the FCO recently.

    We have no Foreign policy other than Brexit. That is how it will be for the lost decade in front of us.
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Prior to Brexit it was Middle Eastern warmongering.

    And the UK is still an 'Overseas Aid Superpower'.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. L, the way the aid budget has a floor we need to spend it and, in the past, this means splurging on any old thing to meet the magical target number which means the UK Government can feel self-satisfied about how virtuous it is.

    There's no evil in making a profit and doing so by enriching a poorer nation and helping lift its people out of poverty. It's a perfect example of benevolent capitalism.

    And, because it's aid not 'trade', we keep Liam Fox away from Zimbabwe.

    If we didn't have a ring-fenced foreign aid budget I'd likely agree with you.

    Nevertheless with China and Russia actively promoting their interests overseas, retreating into isolationism like Trump appears to want cannot be a sensible reaction. Brexit will probably lead us down the same course, because of the myriad domestic problems it will cause, despite all the tosh about being open to the world.
    Without wanting to turn this into another Brexit discussion, I see it as having exactly the opposite effect - making us much less parochial and more internationalist.
    The UK seems to have riled a lot of foreign countries (including the USA, Canada, NZ and not least Australia) with which it wishes to set up trade deals by the way it is proposing to partition, between the EU and the UK, existing EU quotas for tariff-free trade with 3rd countries post Brexit.

    On another note, Australia is probably salivating over the impending slaughter of the dire English cricket team in the Gabbattoir in next day's play in the 1st Test.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    In any case, when you include the government leaflet, “Remain” outspent “Leave” by 50%.....

    But the government leaflet was just Tory propaganda, wasn`t it? I don`t remember even reading it - though I suppose I must have done. Cameron and Osborne ran a useless campaign for Remain.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    The Chinese model of buying up Africa does not require military power, simply economic power and a willingness to deal with local regimes.

    The Chinese are reasonably comfortable with one party kleptocracies like Zim and Angola, but also able to work well in more democratic countries like Zambia. Not always popular, with poor labour practices, but the Zambian Copperbelt is looking prosperous again.
    Yes, it does require a blue water n.
    Where has the Chinese Red army deployed abroad other than Korea in 1950?

    Where have the Chinese interfered with military force in protection of overseas commercial interests, apart from against Somali pirates?

    The Chinese see the South China Sea as their patch, not unreasonably.

    Those questions are of no relevance. The whole point of the article was that China is now emerging as a superpower, in a way it wasn't even a decade ago, never mind 60 years ago. Its actions in the past are less relevant than the actions of other countries of equivalent power: that very prominence forces intervention.

    China began operations from its first military base in Africa earlier this year.

    http://www.newsweek.com/chinese-military-china-and-us-military-base-africa-644890
    That article is about a logistics base in Djibouti to support actions of a humanitarian and commercial nature.

    I am not questioning the rise of Chinese influence in Africa, or as a superpower, but it is not primarily a military venture, but rather a commercial venture. I see that as progress in the world.

    We see the same Chinese commercial interests buying up large parts of our own country too, from football clubs, power stations, to property to universities. It is not just Zim that is being colonised. Brexit will have us dancing to the Chinese tune.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,082

    Mr. B2, I'm not sure to what extent this is still true, but some years ago I read that Chinese firms operating in Africa tended to import a Chinese workforce, so employment numbers in the region didn't increase as much as might be expected. That said, improvements to transport infrastructure obviously benefit everyone.

    My deduction that these were Chinese projects was largely based on the appearance of the workforce, who certainly weren't Ethiopian. Whilst I was there I saw articles about Chinese involvement/investment, also.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    edited November 2017

    Where has the Chinese Red army [sic] deployed abroad other than Korea in 1950?

    I can think of two other occasions - Tibet in 1950 and the Sino-Soviet conflict of 1969.

    However it is worth remembering until very recently China's efforts were focussed on itself and its immediate locality, partly because it had neither the money nor the energy to project itself globally. That is now changing and I would not be surprised to see Chinese military intervention in areas where it has major economic interests.

    This pattern has been seen before. Until 1845, the US army had never been heavily involved in actions outside what it boughtthought of as its frontiers (as it did at one point think Canada should join it) and it wasn't until Hawaii in 1893 and the Philippines in 1898 that it started to spread its military reach significantly beyond its own continent.

    Perhaps China will reach that point more quickly, perhaps not.

    Edited to change the Freudian autocorrect slip of the century so far!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. L, the way the aid budget has a floor we need to spend it and, in the past, this means splurging on any old thing to meet the magical target number which means the UK Government can feel self-satisfied about how virtuous it is.

    There's no evil in making a profit and doing so by enriching a poorer nation and helping lift its people out of poverty. It's a perfect example of benevolent capitalism.

    And, because it's aid not 'trade', we keep Liam Fox away from Zimbabwe.

    If we didn't have a ring-fenced foreign aid budget I'd likely agree with you.

    Nevertheless with China and Russia actively promoting their interests overseas, retreating into isolationism like Trump appears to want cannot be a sensible reaction. Brexit will probably lead us down the same course, because of the myriad domestic problems it will cause, despite all the tosh about being open to the world.
    I was talking to an old friend at the FCO recently.

    We have no Foreign policy other than Brexit. That is how it will be for the lost decade in front of us.
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Prior to Brexit it was Middle Eastern warmongering.

    And the UK is still an 'Overseas Aid Superpower'.
    and of course while in the EU we had "influence", so much of it that Merkel ignored Cameron and we ended up voting to leave
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. L, the way the aid budget has a floor we need to spend it and, in the past, this means splurging on any old thing to meet the magical target number which means the UK Government can feel self-satisfied about how virtuous it is.

    There's no evil in making a profit and doing so by enriching a poorer nation and helping lift its people out of poverty. It's a perfect example of benevolent capitalism.

    And, because it's aid not 'trade', we keep Liam Fox away from Zimbabwe.

    If we didn't have a ring-fenced foreign aid budget I'd likely agree with you.

    Nevertheless with China and Russia actively promoting their interests overseas, retreating into isolationism like Trump appears to want cannot be a sensible reaction. Brexit will probably lead us down the same course, because of the myriad domestic problems it will cause, despite all the tosh about being open to the world.
    I was talking to an old friend at the FCO recently.

    We have no Foreign policy other than Brexit. That is how it will be for the lost decade in front of us.
    Given FCO policy has largely failed since the 1960s, the idea that the FCO think they have no policy objectives is almost certainly a strategic bonus...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    Where has the Chinese Red army deployed abroad other than Korea in 1950?

    Against Vietnam in 1979, for reasons that have never been entirely clear, in an operation which ended inconclusively. Best read as a "don't mess with our interests, neighbour" exercise, perhaps.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. L, the way the aid budget has a floor we need to spend it and, in the past, this means splurging on any old thing to meet the magical target number which means the UK Government can feel self-satisfied about how virtuous it is.

    There's no evil in making a profit and doing so by enriching a poorer nation and helping lift its people out of poverty. It's a perfect example of benevolent capitalism.

    And, because it's aid not 'trade', we keep Liam Fox away from Zimbabwe.

    If we didn't have a ring-fenced foreign aid budget I'd likely agree with you.

    Nevertheless with China and Russia actively promoting their interests overseas, retreating into isolationism like Trump appears to want cannot be a sensible reaction. Brexit will probably lead us down the same course, because of the myriad domestic problems it will cause, despite all the tosh about being open to the world.
    I was talking to an old friend at the FCO recently.

    We have no Foreign policy other than Brexit. That is how it will be for the lost decade in front of us.
    Given FCO policy has largely failed since the 1960s, the idea that the FCO think they have no policy objectives is almost certainly a strategic bonus...
    LOL

    there is hope for us after all :-)
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Its not even as if our politicians and foreign office are any good at it.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    The Chinese model of buying up Africa does not require military power, simply economic power and a willingness to deal with local regimes.

    The Chinese are reasonably comfortable with one party kleptocracies like Zim and Angola, but also able to work well in more democratic countries like Zambia. Not always popular, with poor labour practices, but the Zambian Copperbelt is looking prosperous again.
    Yes, it does require a blue water navy (which is precisely why China is building one). Overseas investment on that scale, and the absolute criticality of the products from Africa to the Chinese economy, need protecting. It has to be able to ensure that the goods will arrive. Only a blue water navy can do that.

    It also needs an on-the-ground presence in Africa so that it can, if necessary, intervene to protect its assets and its people. "Buying up Africa" works fine until a regime either decides to do something silly, or loses control. At that point, you need guns.
    Where has the Chinese Red army deployed abroad other than Korea in 1950?

    Where have the Chinese interfered with military force in protection of overseas commercial interests, apart from against Somali pirates?

    The Chinese see the South China Sea as their patch, not unreasonably.

    Tibet, India, Vietnam

    You could add the Soviet Far East too, but those were all border disputes, where Chinese sovereignty was at least arguable.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    The Chinese model of buying up Africa does not require military power, simply economic power and a willingness to deal with local regimes.

    The Chinese are reasonably comfortable with one party kleptocracies like Zim and Angola, but also able to work well in more democratic countries like Zambia. Not always popular, with poor labour practices, but the Zambian Copperbelt is looking prosperous again.
    Yes, it does require a blue water navy (which is precisely why China is building one). Overseas investment on that scale, and the absolute criticality of the products from Africa to the Chinese economy, need protecting. It has to be able to ensure that the goods will arrive. Only a blue water navy can do that.

    It also needs an on-the-ground presence in Africa so that it can, if necessary, intervene to protect its assets and its people. "Buying up Africa" works fine until a regime either decides to do something silly, or loses control. At that point, you need guns.
    Where has the Chinese Red army deployed abroad other than Korea in 1950?

    Where have the Chinese interfered with military force in protection of overseas commercial interests, apart from against Somali pirates?

    The Chinese see the South China Sea as their patch, not unreasonably.

    Tibet, India, Vietnam

    You could add the Soviet Far East too, but those were all border disputes, where Chinese sovereignty was at least arguable.
    maybe

    you could argue Korea was a border dispute too

    but you asked where else they had been
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,082

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    The logic of Brexit is that we become non-aligned and play a role akin to Norway or Switzerland. Whilst this might pave the way for Corbyn's foreign policy, I very much doubt that this is the way the Tories see things.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited November 2017
    I have spent a fair bit of time in China over recent years doing business and travelling around the place. What I have learned is that the Chinese are entirely pragmatic and transactional in the way they approach issues. They are not interested in friendship, but they will cultivate good relationships in order to get what they need. Unlike the Americans and the Europeans, they have very little concern about values or wanting to be seen as a force for good. All they are focused on is what is good for China. And they understand that what is good for China is international commerce and peace. Leave the Chinese alone to manage their sphere of influence in south-east Asia, and everything is likely to be fine. Start infringing on what they consider to be home turf and all hell will break lose. When David Cameron met the Dalai Lama it immediately led to all official cooperation with the Chinese authorities at every level being withdrawn from us, though they did not go so far as to run us out of the country - probably because we were (and are) offering them something they need.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,769
    ydoethur said:

    Where has the Chinese Red army [sic] deployed abroad other than Korea in 1950?

    I can think of two other occasions - Tibet in 1950 and the Sino-Soviet conflict of 1969.

    However it is worth remembering until very recently China's efforts were focussed on itself and its immediate locality, partly because it had neither the money nor the energy to project itself globally. That is now changing and I would not be surprised to see Chinese military intervention in areas where it has major economic interests.

    This pattern has been seen before. Until 1845, the US army had never been heavily involved in actions outside what it boughtthought of as its frontiers (as it did at one point think Canada should join it) and it wasn't until Hawaii in 1893 and the Philippines in 1898 that it started to spread its military reach significantly beyond its own continent.

    Perhaps China will reach that point more quickly, perhaps not.

    Edited to change the Freudian autocorrect slip of the century so far!
    They also had a go at India during the Cuban Missile crisis:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

    I don't see the Chinese as being less militaristic than anyone else, probably more so than western countries are now given our aversion to casualties.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,769

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    Well put.
  • Mr. Observer, 'manage their sphere of influence'?

    Hmm. They're ignoring their promises to Hong Kong and annexed territory that doesn't belong to them.

    Of course, China's immensely powerful right now so they may well keep what they've taken. But it's not 'management'. It's a land grab (well, sea grab) for resources.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited November 2017
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    The logic of Brexit is that we become non-aligned and play a role akin to Norway or Switzerland. Whilst this might pave the way for Corbyn's foreign policy, I very much doubt that this is the way the Tories see things.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
  • IanB2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    An outstanding piece by David Herdson. It's worth noting that African countries may do at least as well out of China's rise in Africa as the Chinese do.

    If they've learned from our historical experience, the Chinese shouldn't expect to be liked for the part they're playing.

    The Chinese will not be bothered by that even a little bit. They are entirely pragmatic and have no interest in making friends with anyone, as long as they can get what they need. That said, the Chinese did not conquer Africa by force, divide it up into colonial constructs that bore little reality to tribal boundaries established over millennia or sell millions of Africans into slavery, so maybe have less grounds to worry about being liked or disliked.

    This is why I do not view Chinese involvement in Africa with horror as some seem to. Looking at their involvement in place like Botswana, Mozambique and Malawi it seems to me to be far more benign than previous colonial and neo-colonial efforts in the region.
    True. We do of course live in different times. Nevertheless these countries are likely to become economically dependent on China, and politics generally follows the money.
    To some extent I agree. But people seem to forget how long China has been involved in Africa (since the late 60s in some cases) and those countries they have had the most influence on have seen a steady progression to the sorts of civil society and democracy that we are always preaching but failing to effect in other parts of the Continent (and most notably in the Middle East).

    As I understand it there were, for example, no Chinese objections to Mozambique or Cameroon joining the Commonwealth in 1995 in spite of very heavy Chinese investment in those countries.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    That article is about a logistics base in Djibouti to support actions of a humanitarian and commercial nature.

    I am not questioning the rise of Chinese influence in Africa, or as a superpower, but it is not primarily a military venture, but rather a commercial venture. I see that as progress in the world.

    (Snip)

    Surely the most obvious parallel is with the East India Company? A company that was set up for trade, but because of competition with France and weakness in the Indian leaders, it became increasingly militaristic and took on de-facto leadership of the country?

    I'd expect the same thing to happen, except much more quickly.


  • Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    The Chinese model of buying up Africa does not require military power, simply economic power and a willingness to deal with local regimes.

    The Chinese are reasonably comfortable with one party kleptocracies like Zim and Angola, but also able to work well in more democratic countries like Zambia. Not always popular, with poor labour practices, but the Zambian Copperbelt is looking prosperous again.

    Yes, it does require a blue water n.
    Where has the Chinese Red army deployed abroad other than Korea in 1950?

    Where have the Chinese interfered with military force in protection of overseas commercial interests, apart from against Somali pirates?

    The Chinese see the South China Sea as their patch, not unreasonably.

    Those questions are of no relevance. The whole point of the article was that China is now emerging as a superpower, in a way it wasn't even a decade ago, never mind 60 years ago. Its actions in the past are less relevant than the actions of other countries of equivalent power: that very prominence forces intervention.

    China began operations from its first military base in Africa earlier this year.

    http://www.newsweek.com/chinese-military-china-and-us-military-base-africa-644890
    That article is about a logistics base in Djibouti to support actions of a humanitarian and commercial nature.

    I am not questioning the rise of Chinese influence in Africa, or as a superpower, but it is not primarily a military venture, but rather a commercial venture. I see that as progress in the world.

    We see the same Chinese commercial interests buying up large parts of our own country too, from football clubs, power stations, to property to universities. It is not just Zim that is being colonised. Brexit will have us dancing to the Chinese tune.
    Oh, come on - you're savvier than that. You're right that China's expansion in Africa is an economic one rather than a military or political exercise but the two cannot be so simply separated. Yes, it's a commercial venture but it's a commercial venture of such scale that it has made itself a political actor simply by the scale of its economic power - and where political power can be used, it will be. Similarly, China cannot simply risk so much investment without some form of protection for it. Ignore the words about the Djibouti base. They can call it what they like but the fact remains that the Chinese army will have, for the first time, a permanent military presence in Africa. Its operations and objectives can be changed on the stroke of a pen (or keyboard).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,769

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    I don't see why we would want to do that. We may well support an expansion of the Security Council to include countries such as India and Brazil though. This has been talked about for years.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    Indeed.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,082
    edited November 2017

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .



    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    The logic of Brexit is that we become non-aligned and play a role akin to Norway or Switzerland. Whilst this might pave the way for Corbyn's foreign policy, I very much doubt that this is the way the Tories see things.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
    Because those have been the people in power since 1997, until very recently. There is no reason to believe Conservatives would have done any different.

    I recognise there is a strand of isolationism within the Tory party, but it has never been the dominant view (Brexit aside edit/and arguably the mid 1930s). Moving towards non-alignment challenges a whole host of issues, including Trident and spending on the military, as well as the UNSC seat as SO says below.
  • Mr. Observer, 'manage their sphere of influence'?

    Hmm. They're ignoring their promises to Hong Kong and annexed territory that doesn't belong to them.

    Of course, China's immensely powerful right now so they may well keep what they've taken. But it's not 'management'. It's a land grab (well, sea grab) for resources.

    It is and there is nothing anyone can do about it. We may not like it, but China has a sphere of influence and will not take kindly to that being challenged. Beyond that, though, the Chinese have little to no interest in getting actively involved. They will cultivate personal relationships inside existing ruling elites - in Africa and elsewhere - to ensure others do the heavy lifting on their behalf. They have zero motivation to export "Chinese values". That makes them very different to previous superpowers.

  • That article is about a logistics base in Djibouti to support actions of a humanitarian and commercial nature.

    I am not questioning the rise of Chinese influence in Africa, or as a superpower, but it is not primarily a military venture, but rather a commercial venture. I see that as progress in the world.

    (Snip)

    Surely the most obvious parallel is with the East India Company? A company that was set up for trade, but because of competition with France and weakness in the Indian leaders, it became increasingly militaristic and took on de-facto leadership of the country?

    I'd expect the same thing to happen, except much more quickly.
    Hmm. I think someone mentioned that example upthread? Right at the top, in fact?

    (Though I wouldn't expect the colonising aspects of the EIC: informal, but substantial, influence backed up by military bases will be the way it'll go).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    What an absurd proposal? The UK is still the 5th largest economy in the world and still contributes above its weight in UN peacekeeping operations etc. It would be a catastrophic error to give up our UN Security Council seat especially as only we could voluntarily do so. Once on the Security Council no nation can be removed except voluntarily.

    Expand the UN Security Council to include India (provided Pakistan does not veto of course), Japan and Germany and Brazil by all means but do not give up the UK seat.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2017

    IanB2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    An outstanding piece by David Herdson. It's worth noting that African countries may do at least as well out of China's rise in Africa as the Chinese do.

    If they've learned from our historical experience, the Chinese shouldn't expect to be liked for the part they're playing.

    The Chinese will not be bothered by that even a little bit. They are entirely pragmatic and have no interest in making friends with anyone, as long as they can get what they need. That said, the Chinese did not conquer Africa by force, divide it up into colonial constructs that bore little reality to tribal boundaries established over millennia or sell millions of Africans into slavery, so maybe have less grounds to worry about being liked or disliked.

    This is why I do not view Chinese involvement in Africa with horror as some seem to. Looking at their involvement in place like Botswana, Mozambique and Malawi it seems to me to be far more benign than previous colonial and neo-colonial efforts in the region.
    True. We do of course live in different times. Nevertheless these countries are likely to become economically dependent on China, and politics generally follows the money.
    To some extent I agree. But people seem to forget how long China has been involved in Africa (since the late 60s in some cases) and those countries they have had the most influence on have seen a steady progression to the sorts of civil society and democracy that we are always preaching but failing to effect in other parts of the Continent (and most notably in the Middle East).

    As I understand it there were, for example, no Chinese objections to Mozambique or Cameroon joining the Commonwealth in 1995 in spite of very heavy Chinese investment in those countries.
    The Tanzania-Zambia railway was built in the 60's by the Chinese, for example and both countries found Chinese influence a useful counterbalance to cold war politics and the Rhodesian war.

  • IanB2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    An outstanding piece by David Herdson. It's worth noting that African countries may do at least as well out of China's rise in Africa as the Chinese do.

    If they've learned from our historical experience, the Chinese shouldn't expect to be liked for the part they're playing.

    The Chinese will not be bothered by that even a little bit. They are entirely pragmatic and have no interest in making friends with anyone, as long as they can get what they need. That said, the Chinese did not conquer Africa by force, divide it up into colonial constructs that bore little reality to tribal boundaries established over millennia or sell millions of Africans into slavery, so maybe have less grounds to worry about being liked or disliked.

    This is why I do not view Chinese involvement in Africa with horror as some seem to. Looking at their involvement in place like Botswana, Mozambique and Malawi it seems to me to be far more benign than previous colonial and neo-colonial efforts in the region.
    True. We do of course live in different times. Nevertheless these countries are likely to become economically dependent on China, and politics generally follows the money.
    To some extent I agree. But people seem to forget how long China has been involved in Africa (since the late 60s in some cases) and those countries they have had the most influence on have seen a steady progression to the sorts of civil society and democracy that we are always preaching but failing to effect in other parts of the Continent (and most notably in the Middle East).

    As I understand it there were, for example, no Chinese objections to Mozambique or Cameroon joining the Commonwealth in 1995 in spite of very heavy Chinese investment in those countries.
    Perhaps because the Chinese can see the Commonwealth for what it is?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited November 2017
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .



    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is op reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend wilof good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    The logic of Brexit is that we become non-aligned and play a role akin to Norway or Switzerland. Whilst this might pave the way for Corbyn's foreign policy, I very much doubt that this is the way the Tories see things.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
    Because those have been the people in power since 1997, until very recently. There is no reason to believe Conservatives would have done any different.

    I recognise there is a strand of isolationism within the Tory party, but it has never been the dominant view (Brexit aside edit/and arguably the mid 1930s). Moving towards non-alignment challenges a whole host of issues, including Trident and spending on the military, as well as the UNSC seat as SO says below.
    but you cant recognise there is a strand of liberlaism that wishes to dabble in other peoples affairs and that your political heroes will invade places just as much as anyone else

    only in their case they will hide behind some pseudomorality. Was Libya the worst case of virtue signalling to date ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    That article is about a logistics base in Djibouti to support actions of a humanitarian and commercial nature.

    I am not questioning the rise of Chinese influence in Africa, or as a superpower, but it is not primarily a military venture, but rather a commercial venture. I see that as progress in the world.

    (Snip)

    Surely the most obvious parallel is with the East India Company? A company that was set up for trade, but because of competition with France and weakness in the Indian leaders, it became increasingly militaristic and took on de-facto leadership of the country?

    I'd expect the same thing to happen, except much more quickly.
    Hmm. I think someone mentioned that example upthread? Right at the top, in fact?

    (Though I wouldn't expect the colonising aspects of the EIC: informal, but substantial, influence backed up by military bases will be the way it'll go).
    Just reinforcing your excellent point. ;)

    I'm not so sure you won't get the colonising aspects. In fact, it may be quite hard to avoid them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited November 2017
    First results from Queensland's state election give Labor a narrow lead over the Coalition on 37% to 33%. However the main story is a big rise in support for Pauline Hanson's anti immigration One Nation Party currently on 15% in early results.

    With 6% in (changes from 2015 in brackets)

    ALP 37% (-4%)
    Coalition 33% (-4%)
    PHON 15% (+14%)
    Greens 11% (+3%)
    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-25/queensland-election-live-blog-external-link-article/9193770
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,082

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .




    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    The logic of Brexit is that we become non-aligned and play a role akin to Norway or Switzerland. Whilst this might pave the way for Corbyn's foreign policy, I very much doubt that this is the way the Tories see things.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
    Because those have been the people in power since 1997, until very recently. There is no reason to believe Conservatives would have done any different.

    I recognise there is a strand of isolationism within the Tory party, but it has never been the dominant view (Brexit aside edit/and arguably the mid 1930s). Moving towards non-alignment challenges a whole host of issues, including Trident and spending on the military, as well as the UNSC seat as SO says below.
    but you cant recognise there is a strand of liberlaism that wishes to dabble in other peoples affairs and that your political heroes will invade places just as much as anyone else

    only in their case they will hide behind so pseudomoralty. Was Libya the worst case of virtue signalling to date ?
    Certainly I recognise liberal interventionism. Yugoslavia is a justified example and Rwanda would have been. But speaking personally, I (and my party) opposed Iraq and personally I opposed Libya. So your 'heroes' doesn't really fly.

    However I wasn't arguing against interventionism so much as flagging the logical consequences of Brexit. It remains my view that Labour will find these easier to deal with than the Tories. An on the economy also.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Good morning, everyone.

    Brrr. On-topic, an interesting and astute article.

    There was a bit on the news about Zimbabwe's need for investment, with great mineral wealth but the frequent lack of money on the landowners' part to mine. That's the sort of thing our foreign aid should be ploughed into. It'd help lift Zimbabweans out of poverty, get taxes for the state to provide services *and* provide us with a return on income too. It makes perfect humanitarian and financial sense.

    On that note, the 0.7% foreign aid fund was seemingly untouched by the recent Budget (the term 'Autumn Statement' appears to have vanished). Hacking it down for health or other spending would've gone down well with most people, but where the political class have a consensus the electorate's disagreement doesn't matter for a long time. (Such as the EU. If politicians had bothered to ask us before frittering away vetoes and binding us ever closer, we not only probably would've averted the nuclear option, we wouldn't be chained so tightly anyway).

    DfID used to have a wonderful organisation called the Commonwealth Development Corporation which did exactly that. Silly politicians (I believe Brown but not sure) gave it to the management (it's now called Actis) because he thought it morally wrong for the UK to make a profit from the foreign aid budget.

    The fact that it was unbelievable beneficial for the recipients was irrelevant to him
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    China is building a string of naval bases across the broader Indian Ocean - the "string of pearls".

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_(Indian_Ocean).

    There is some argument, however, about whether China is yet a "superpower", although this feels to me academic. It has clearly stepped into a vacuum left by declining economic power in the West, generally, and the isolationism and anti-environmentalism of Trump specifically.

    However, Chinese power and spread will not be uncontested.

    India is quietly creating its own version of "String of Pearls".

    Geopolitically, the story of the next 25 years is the contest between China and India, allied to the US and Australia, in Asia Pacific.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    nielh said:

    If we are to believe that report, Putin backed Corbyn in the GE as well.

    However, its a big IF, as if you look at the site as a whole, it is one massive conspiracy theory e.g. it was China and Russia who stole the US election, Fox News coordinated with them to broadcast their propaganda, etc etc etc.
    That website does not look like a credible source.

    Edit - But if the stuff on it is true, wow.
    I knew Bertie Nix at Cambridge Analytica from school. I'd be very surprised if he is a front for the Russians
    This makes me believe it's highly credible. ;)
    Despite the name of the company he went to Edinburgh not Cambridge, so at least one leading indicatior points in the wrong direction for Russian involvement
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Mr. Observer, 'manage their sphere of influence'?

    Hmm. They're ignoring their promises to Hong Kong and annexed territory that doesn't belong to them.

    Of course, China's immensely powerful right now so they may well keep what they've taken. But it's not 'management'. It's a land grab (well, sea grab) for resources.

    It is and there is nothing anyone can do about it. We may not like it, but China has a sphere of influence and will not take kindly to that being challenged. Beyond that, though, the Chinese have little to no interest in getting actively involved. They will cultivate personal relationships inside existing ruling elites - in Africa and elsewhere - to ensure others do the heavy lifting on their behalf. They have zero motivation to export "Chinese values". That makes them very different to previous superpowers.

    I would agree, but China is adapting to Western ideas too, in terns of values and not just capitalism. Christianity is on the rise there, and usually of a Protestant Evangelical form.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Incidentally, and utterly OT, a webcomic poll about what people like the most (regular releases, art, dialogue, something else). If you're on Twitter, do please reply:

    https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/933251973477949441

    Surely "coming out regularly" is only of interest to LGBT comic readers.., :wink:
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .



    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is op reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend wilof good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    The logic of Brexit is that we become non-aligned and play a role akin to Norway or Switzerland. Whilst this might pave the way for Corbyn's foreign policy, I very much doubt that this is the way the Tories see things.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
    Because those have been the people in power since 1997, until very recently. There is no reason to believe Conservatives would have done any different.

    I recognise there is a strand of isolationism within the Tory party, but it has never been the dominant view (Brexit aside edit/and arguably the mid 1930s). Moving towards non-alignment challenges a whole host of issues, including Trident and spending on the military, as well as the UNSC seat as SO says below.
    but you cant recognise there is a strand of liberlaism that wishes to dabble in other peoples affairs and that your political heroes will invade places just as much as anyone else

    only in their case they will hide behind some pseudomorality. Was Libya the worst case of virtue signalling to date ?
    The LDs were notably opposed to Blair's foreign wars.

    The Tories backed the wars.
  • I don't think she's a fan:

    The Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the land border. A recurrent theme of practically everyone we see, especially from other non-EU countries which have borders with EU countries, is that – if there is political will to make it work – cross-border trade can be seamless.

    Leo Varadkar would be much better remembering that Ireland has more trade with Northern Ireland and Great Britain than any other EU country and that most exports to outside the UK go through English ports. Indeed, his country is totally dependent on UK trade, so he should be careful what he wishes for. He needs to remember that there has been a Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland long before we joined the Common Market. He needs to remember that Irish citizens in the UK have always had special status (they could even vote in the 2016 Referendum) and will continue to enjoy this unique privilege. He should remember too that the UK bailed the Republic out with £7 billion during the credit crisis.

    So let’s be blunt: no more hypocrisy, Leo. You need to face reality, recognise who the true friends of the Republic are and stop doing the bidding of the EU in their increasingly desperate attempts to play hard ball with us.


    http://brexitcentral.com/leo-varadkar-needs-stop-hypocrisy-remember-irelands-true-friends/
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    +1
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    Something that should have been explicitly recognised long ago. The most obvious failure was in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis. Defence spending should have been pared to the bone then (not bothering renewing the nuclear deterrent as well) and foreign policy reshaped accordingly.

    What Britain can effectively do has been lost in the confusion of trying to keep up illusions.

    And now the only foreign policy it has is Brexit. If Britain had a halfway competent prime minister or foreign secretary, a new vision of Britain's place in the world, that would help shape what Brexit looks like, would have been unveiled by now. Instead it is degenerating into a hermit kingdom, unable to cope with the 21st century.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .




    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    The logic of Brexit is that we become non-aligned and play a role akin to Norway or Switzerland. Whilst this might pave the way for Corbyn's foreign policy, I very much doubt that this is the way the Tories see things.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
    Because those have been the people in power since 1997, until very recently. There is no reason to believe Conservatives w says below.
    but you cant recognise there is a strand of liberlaism that wishes to dabble in other peoples affairs and that your political heroes will invade places just as much as anyone else

    only in their case they will hide behind so pseudomoralty. Was Libya the worst case of virtue signalling to date ?
    Certainly I recognise liberal interventionism. Yugoslavia is a justified example and Rwanda would have been. But speaking personally, I (and my party) opposed Iraq and personally I opposed Libya. So your 'heroes' doesn't really fly.

    However I wasn't arguing against interventionism so much as flagging the logical consequences of Brexit. It remains my view that Labour will find these easier to deal with than the Tories. An on the economy also.
    the heroes statement does fly since they went ahead and did it and youd still vote for tem

    as usual when we get to a Brexit issue everyone you disagree with only ever thinks at the extremes. It's pantomime baddies.

    It doesnt seem to occur to you there might be a large spectrum of opinion.

  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .



    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is op reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend wilof good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    The logic of Brexit is that we become non-aligned and play a role akin to Norway or Switzerland. Whilst this might pave the way for Corbyn's foreign policy, I very much doubt that this is the way the Tories see things.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
    Because those have been the people in power since 1997, until very recently. There is no reason to believe Conservatives would have done any different.

    I recognise there is a strand of isolationism within the Tory party, but it has never been the dominant view (Brexit aside edit/and arguably the mid 1930s). Moving towards non-alignment challenges a whole host of issues, including Trident and spending on the military, as well as the UNSC seat as SO says below.
    but you cant recognise there is a strand of liberlaism that wishes to dabble in other peoples affairs and that your political heroes will invade places just as much as anyone else

    only in their case they will hide behind some pseudomorality. Was Libya the worst case of virtue signalling to date ?
    The LDs were notably opposed to Blair's foreign wars.

    The Tories backed the wars.
    The Ls supported Cameron's foreign wars.

    Perhaps if the LDs had been in government they would have viewed Iraq in the same way they viewed Libya and Syria.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    kle4 said:

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
    Military empire building is so nineteenth century. The Chinese simply do not need a military presence in Africa, or on the sea routes. It is a cost financially, and perceived as a threat to local sovereignty, with no upside.

    Modern empires are an economic construct.
    Not quite true: they are free riding on US and UK naval activities (anti-piracy) in the Straits of Mallaca and off the Horn of Africa.*

    * that's why the port they are building in Myanmar is so intriguing
  • I don't think she's a fan:

    The Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the land border. A recurrent theme of practically everyone we see, especially from other non-EU countries which have borders with EU countries, is that – if there is political will to make it work – cross-border trade can be seamless.

    Leo Varadkar would be much better remembering that Ireland has more trade with Northern Ireland and Great Britain than any other EU country and that most exports to outside the UK go through English ports. Indeed, his country is totally dependent on UK trade, so he should be careful what he wishes for. He needs to remember that there has been a Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland long before we joined the Common Market. He needs to remember that Irish citizens in the UK have always had special status (they could even vote in the 2016 Referendum) and will continue to enjoy this unique privilege. He should remember too that the UK bailed the Republic out with £7 billion during the credit crisis.

    So let’s be blunt: no more hypocrisy, Leo. You need to face reality, recognise who the true friends of the Republic are and stop doing the bidding of the EU in their increasingly desperate attempts to play hard ball with us.


    http://brexitcentral.com/leo-varadkar-needs-stop-hypocrisy-remember-irelands-true-friends/

    Hypocrisy is creating a problem, refusing to recognise the problem and then complaining when someone who is trying to get your attention focused on the problem doesn't go away when you decide it's awfully difficult.
  • That article is about a logistics base in Djibouti to support actions of a humanitarian and commercial nature.

    I am not questioning the rise of Chinese influence in Africa, or as a superpower, but it is not primarily a military venture, but rather a commercial venture. I see that as progress in the world.

    (Snip)

    Surely the most obvious parallel is with the East India Company? A company that was set up for trade, but because of competition with France and weakness in the Indian leaders, it became increasingly militaristic and took on de-facto leadership of the country?

    I'd expect the same thing to happen, except much more quickly.
    I think the comparison is very accurate but that the projection is wrong. The 19th century was of course a very different time with very different views of how best to achieve aims.

    Von Clausewitz's view of war as an extension of politics by other means may still be true in theory but in practice it has lost much of its power in the 21st century. Mostly because it has, to a large extent, become unnecessary. There are places that are unfortunately the exception to the rule such as the Middle East (which is perhaps a god example of the failure of the maxim) and of course countries such as Russia which still seem to value the idea. But I do not see China or its subsidiaries making use of the military to achieve their aims in the same way the EIC did with their private armies mostly because there are simpler and far more cost effective ways to achieve the same aims.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    HYUFD said:



    What an absurd proposal? The UK is still the 5th largest economy in the world and still contributes above its weight in UN peacekeeping operations etc. It would be a catastrophic error to give up our UN Security Council seat especially as only we could voluntarily do so. Once on the Security Council no nation can be removed except voluntarily.

    Expand the UN Security Council to include India (provided Pakistan does not veto of course), Japan and Germany and Brazil by all means but do not give up the UK seat.

    The UK should stop posturing on the world stage - it can no longer afford to do so. It should hand over its remaining overseas territories to suitable local countries (e.g. Gibraltar to Spain, the Cyprus bases to Turkey), and the 6 counties to Eire (which solves the Brexit Irish border problem) and redesign its military forces to be based solely in GB and to be solely for the defence of GB.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    Something that should have been explicitly recognised long ago. The most obvious failure was in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis. Defence spending should have been pared to the bone then (not bothering renewing the nuclear deterrent as well) and foreign policy reshaped accordingly.

    What Britain can effectively do has been lost in the confusion of trying to keep up illusions.

    And now the only foreign policy it has is Brexit. If Britain had a halfway competent prime minister or foreign secretary, a new vision of Britain's place in the world, that would help shape what Brexit looks like, would have been unveiled by now. Instead it is degenerating into a hermit kingdom, unable to cope with the 21st century.
    I wouldn't say we had no foreign policy apart from Brexit, as we do have a few legacy projects such as arming the Saudi Wahabbis in their genocide of Yemen.

    Other than that it is hard to see what the FCO is doing in the world.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. L, the way the aid budget has a floor we need to spend it and, in the past, this means splurging on any old thing to meet the magical target number which means the UK Government can feel self-satisfied about how virtuous it is.

    There's no evil in making a profit and doing so by enriching a poorer nation and helping lift its people out of poverty. It's a perfect example of benevolent capitalism.

    And, because it's aid not 'trade', we keep Liam Fox away from Zimbabwe.

    If we didn't have a ring-fenced foreign aid budget I'd likely agree with you.

    Nevertheless with China and Russia actively promoting world.
    I was talking to an old friend at the FCO recently.

    We have no Foreign policy other than Brexit. That is how it will be for the lost decade in front of us.
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    The actual one, not the hypothetical?
    Alternatively, neither - you really think 'a friend says z' is absolute proof of a lost decade? What nonsense logic. Without knowing anything of the friends in question they might know nothing at all. Anecdotes are interesting but I'm surprised you'd blithely accept one as proof of something.

    A friend of mine has met boris Johnson and said he's an arrogant oaf, but if that was the only account it'd be worth taking with a pinch of salt.

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. L, the way the aid budget has a floor we need to spend it and, in the past, this means splurging on any old thing to meet the magical target number which means the UK Government can feel self-satisfied about how virtuous it is.

    There's no ee with you.

    Nevertheless with China and rld.
    I was talking to an old friend at the FCO recently.

    We have no Foreign policy other than Brexit. That is how it will be for the lost decade in front of us.
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Foreign aid for a start. Regardless it was the maudlin cry of lost decade that stood out not that we'll focus hugely on Brexit. If Charles or someone comes by and says they know an important person and they don't think we're in for a lost decade, that isn't proof either, except to Ian for some rea son.
    Leave me out of this!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .



    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is op reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend wilof good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    The logic of Brexit is that we become non-aligned and play a role akin to Norway or Switzerland. Whilst this might pave the way for Corbyn's foreign policy, I very much doubt that this is the way the Tories see things.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
    Because those have been the peop says below.
    but you cant recognise there is a strand of liberlaism that wishes to dabble in other peoples affairs and that your political heroes will invade places just as much as anyone else

    only in their case they will hide behind some pseudomorality. Was Libya the worst case of virtue signalling to date ?
    The LDs were notably opposed to Blair's foreign wars.

    The Tories backed the wars.
    more moral cant

    you helped invade Libya and wanted to lline up Syria, your just as keen to invade places as anyone else. and for the record i use Liberal as a policitical position not to refer to a political party.

    you mourn the loss of Blair and Cameron as much as any of their supporters
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709



    Where has the Chinese Red army deployed abroad other than Korea in 1950?

    Against Vietnam in 1979, for reasons that have never been entirely clear, in an operation which ended inconclusively. Best read as a "don't mess with our interests, neighbour" exercise, perhaps.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
    Chins rarely deploys troops abroad, even through the UN the numbers are insignificant and certainly not beyond the Far East. In that sense while China is the main economic rival to the US, see too expansion of Chinese economic interests in Africa, Russia remains the main foreign policy rival of the US, see Putin's willingness to send troops and planes to the Middle East unlike China.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,398
    Thank you Mr H for an excellent thread header and to everyone for your interesting contributions below the line.

    I can add an anecdote: A couple of decades ago we were on holiday in The Gambia. Lots of corrugated iron used in construction. Someone flippantly asked where it all came from. 'China' our guide replied.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    nielh said:

    If we are to believe that report, Putin backed Corbyn in the GE as well.

    However, its a big IF, as if you look at the site as a whole, it is one massive conspiracy theory e.g. it was China and Russia who stole the US election, Fox News coordinated with them to broadcast their propaganda, etc etc etc.
    That website does not look like a credible source.

    Edit - But if the stuff on it is true, wow.
    I knew Bertie Nix at Cambridge Analytica from school. I'd be very surprised if he is a front for the Russians
    This makes me believe it's highly credible. ;)
    Despite the name of the company he went to Edinburgh not Cambridge, so at least one leading indicatior points in the wrong direction for Russian involvement
    Well, if he went to Edinburgh he's obviously an absolutely top spiffing bloke. ;)
  • daodao said:

    HYUFD said:



    What an absurd proposal? The UK is still the 5th largest economy in the world and still contributes above its weight in UN peacekeeping operations etc. It would be a catastrophic error to give up our UN Security Council seat especially as only we could voluntarily do so. Once on the Security Council no nation can be removed except voluntarily.

    Expand the UN Security Council to include India (provided Pakistan does not veto of course), Japan and Germany and Brazil by all means but do not give up the UK seat.

    The UK should stop posturing on the world stage - it can no longer afford to do so. It should hand over its remaining overseas territories to suitable local countries (e.g. Gibraltar to Spain, the Cyprus bases to Turkey), and the 6 counties to Eire (which solves the Brexit Irish border problem) and redesign its military forces to be based solely in GB and to be solely for the defence of GB.
    What price democracy?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,082

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .




    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    ngs.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
    Because those have been the people in power since 1997, until very recently. There is no reason to believe Conservatives w says below.
    but you cant recognise there is a strand of liberlaism that wishes to dabble in other peoples affairs and that your political heroes will invade places just as much as anyone else

    only in their case they will hide behind so pseudomoralty. Was Libya the worst case of virtue signalling to date ?
    Certainly I recognise liberal interventionism. Yugoslavia is a justified example and Rwanda would have been. But speaking personally, I (and my party) opposed Iraq and personally I opposed Libya. So your 'heroes' doesn't really fly.

    However I wasn't arguing against interventionism so much as flagging the logical consequences of Brexit. It remains my view that Labour will find these easier to deal with than the Tories. An on the economy also.
    the heroes statement does fly since they went ahead and did it and youd still vote for tem

    as usual when we get to a Brexit issue everyone you disagree with only ever thinks at the extremes. It's pantomime baddies.

    It doesnt seem to occur to you there might be a large spectrum of opinion.

    The people I respect most on this site are those that can engage with a political issue without trying to sink to a personal fight.

    There is nothing in my posts downthread that supports any of your assertions.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .



    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is op reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend wilof good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    The logic of Brexit is that we become non-aligned and play a role akin to Norway or Switzerland. Whilst this might pave the way for Corbyn's foreign policy, I very much doubt that this is the way the Tories see things.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
    Because those have been the peop says below.
    but you cant recognise there is a strand of liberlaism that wishes to dabble in other peoples affairs and that your political heroes will invade places just as much as anyone else

    only in their case they will hide behind some pseudomorality. Was Libya the worst case of virtue signalling to date ?
    The LDs were notably opposed to Blair's foreign wars.

    The Tories backed the wars.
    more moral cant

    you helped invade Libya and wanted to lline up Syria, your just as keen to invade places as anyone else. and for the record i use Liberal as a policitical position not to refer to a political party.

    you mourn the loss of Blair and Cameron as much as any of their supporters
    No I don't.

    I left the Labour party because of Blair's foreign wars and my posts here at the time of the Syrian and Libyan interventions were in opposition to them.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    The Chinese model of buying up Africa does not require military power, simply economic power and a willingness to deal with local regimes.

    The Chinese are reasonably comfortable with one party kleptocracies like Zim and Angola, but also able to work well in more democratic countries like Zambia. Not always popular, with poor labour practices, but the Zambian Copperbelt is looking prosperous again.
    Yes, it does require a blue water navy (which is precisely why China is building one). Overseas investment on that scale, and the absolute criticality of the products from Africa to the Chinese economy, need protecting. It has to be able to ensure that the goods will arrive. Only a blue water navy can do that.

    It also needs an on-the-ground presence in Africa so that it can, if necessary, intervene to protect its assets and its people. "Buying up Africa" works fine until a regime either decides to do something silly, or loses control. At that point, you need guns.

    The Chinese are very unlikely to put troops on the ground anywhere outside their immediate borders. The much more likely scenario is the identification of senior military personnel inside existing national African armies and ensuring they have a direct benefit in ensuring good relations - on a personal level and also to fund more military spending. That seems to be what has happened in Zimbabwe.

    This is the Chinese way and is called Guanxi. It's a word and concept anyone who does any kind of business in China needs to understand.
    I hope you realise that Guanxi is illegal under UK and US law!!
  • HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doingequipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    What an absurd proposal? The UK is still the 5th largest economy in the world and still contributes above its weight in UN peacekeeping operations etc. It would be a catastrophic error to give up our UN Security Council seat especially as only we could voluntarily do so. Once on the Security Council no nation can be removed except voluntarily.

    Expand the UN Security Council to include India (provided Pakistan does not veto of course), Japan and Germany and Brazil by all means but do not give up the UK seat.

    None of that explains why giving up the seat would be a bad idea. We are a properous mid-sized country in Europe that really doesn’t need to pretend to be anything other than that post-Brexit.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .




    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    ngs.
    why

    nutjob liberals are as likely to scream for overseas adventures as your obsolete image of conservatives

    all our interventions since 1997 have been pushed by third way politicians swing their dicks around "because it's the right thing to do"
    Because those have been the people in power since 1997, until very recently. There is no reason to believe Conservatives w says below.
    but you cant recognise there is a strand of liberlaism that wishes to dabble in other peoples affairs and that your political heroes will invade places just as much as anyone else

    only in their case they will hide behind so pseudomoralty. Was Libya the worst case of virtue signalling to date ?
    Certainly I recognise liberal interventionism. Yugoslavia is a justi easier to deal with than the Tories. An on the economy also.
    the heroes statement does fly since they went ahead and did it and youd still vote for tem

    as usual when we get to a Brexit issue everyone you disagree with only ever thinks at the extremes. It's pantomime baddies.

    It doesnt seem to occur to you there might be a large spectrum of opinion.

    The people I respect most on this site are those that can engage with a political issue without trying to sink to a personal fight.

    There is nothing in my posts downthread that supports any of your assertions.
    there's lots in your posts that do just that, you just cant see it.


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,769

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    Something that should have been explicitly recognised long ago. The most obvious failure was in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis. Defence spending should have been pared to the bone then (not bothering renewing the nuclear deterrent as well) and foreign policy reshaped accordingly.

    What Britain can effectively do has been lost in the confusion of trying to keep up illusions.

    And now the only foreign policy it has is Brexit. If Britain had a halfway competent prime minister or foreign secretary, a new vision of Britain's place in the world, that would help shape what Brexit looks like, would have been unveiled by now. Instead it is degenerating into a hermit kingdom, unable to cope with the 21st century.
    You think we didn't cut back on defence after 2010? How do you think we ended up with an army of 85k that struggles to keep more than 8k in the field for any length of time?
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:



    .

    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited November 2017
    daodao said:

    HYUFD said:



    What an absurd proposal? The UK is still the 5th largest economy in the world and still contributes above its weight in UN peacekeeping operations etc. It would be a catastrophic error to give up our UN Security Council seat especially as only we could voluntarily do so. Once on the Security Council no nation can be removed except voluntarily.

    Expand the UN Security Council to include India (provided Pakistan does not veto of course), Japan and Germany and Brazil by all means but do not give up the UK seat.

    The UK should stop posturing on the world stage - it can no longer afford to do so. It should hand over its remaining overseas territories to suitable local countries (e.g. Gibraltar to Spain, the Cyprus bases to Turkey), and the 6 counties to Eire (which solves the Brexit Irish border problem) and redesign its military forces to be based solely in GB and to be solely for the defence of GB.
    No. Apart from Australia (which does not have as big a military or as influential diplomats as the UK does) the UK remains the closest ally to the USA, still the number 1 world superpower and we are always likely more often than not to intervene alongside the USA when dealing with rogue states while also fully fulfilling our UN peacekeeping and development role.

    Your proposal on overseas territories is contemptible, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, the Falklands etc all want to stay British and the Greek Cypriots would be infuriated if we gave up our Cyprus base to Turkey. Far from giving them up we should be following the French lead and be more supportive of overseas territories giving them seats in Parliament and being rapidly on the scene in the event of emergencies as France supports Guadaloupe, Martinique and Reunion and French Guinea and French Polynesia for example.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    daodao said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    +1
    If we gave up our seat at the security council, the likelihood is that it would pass without much comment.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    That article is about a logistics base in Djibouti to support actions of a humanitarian and commercial nature.

    I am not questioning the rise of Chinese influence in Africa, or as a superpower, but it is not primarily a military venture, but rather a commercial venture. I see that as progress in the world.

    (Snip)

    Surely the most obvious parallel is with the East India Company? A company that was set up for trade, but because of competition with France and weakness in the Indian leaders, it became increasingly militaristic and took on de-facto leadership of the country?

    I'd expect the same thing to happen, except much more quickly.
    I think the comparison is very accurate but that the projection is wrong. The 19th century was of course a very different time with very different views of how best to achieve aims.

    Von Clausewitz's view of war as an extension of politics by other means may still be true in theory but in practice it has lost much of its power in the 21st century. Mostly because it has, to a large extent, become unnecessary. There are places that are unfortunately the exception to the rule such as the Middle East (which is perhaps a god example of the failure of the maxim) and of course countries such as Russia which still seem to value the idea. But I do not see China or its subsidiaries making use of the military to achieve their aims in the same way the EIC did with their private armies mostly because there are simpler and far more cost effective ways to achieve the same aims.
    I agree with you, but the other side of that coin is that China's policies have yet to be really tested. When they are tested: when the US and Japan in the South China Seas, or a.n.other in Africa, say: "no more!", will those simpler and more cost-effective methods still work?

    China has shown no hesitation in the past to spill its own blood to further its own aims.

    I hope I'm wrong about this, but China's going to be in for some very difficult growing pains soon. I hope they can negotiate them in a sane manner.

    (On the other hand, you really have to applaud their forward thinking. Their strategic plans for five years and beyond make our own ambitions seem minuscule.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    daodao said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. L, the way the aid budget has a floor we need to spend it and, in the past, this means splurging on any old thing to meet the magical target number which means the UK Government can feel self-satisfied about how virtuous it is.

    There's no evil in making a profit and doing so by enriching a poorer nation and helping lift its people out of poverty. It's a perfect example of benevolent capitalism.

    And, because it's aid not 'trade', we keep Liam Fox away from Zimbabwe.

    If we didn't have a ring-fenced foreign aid budget I'd likely agree with you.

    Nevertheless with China and Russia actively promoting their interests overseas, retreating into isolationism like Trump appears to want cannot be a sensible reaction. Brexit will probably lead us down the same course, because of the myriad domestic problems it will cause, despite all the tosh about being open to the world.
    Without wanting to turn this into another Brexit discussion, I see it as having exactly the opposite effect - making us much less parochial and more internationalist.
    The UK seems to have riled a lot of foreign countries (including the USA, Canada, NZ and not least Australia) with which it wishes to set up trade deals by the way it is proposing to partition, between the EU and the UK, existing EU quotas for tariff-free trade with 3rd countries post Brexit.

    On another note, Australia is probably salivating over the impending slaughter of the dire English cricket team in the Gabbattoir in next day's play in the 1st Test.
    Not at all. We've proposed splitting existing quotas between the EU and the UK. They are saying that the EU quotas should remain constant and then the UK should agree to a whole new set (i.e. increasing the total level)

    They are not ruled at all - just taking an aggressive stance to further their own interests. Australia has been particularly vocal (their trade minister has history) but it's just negotiating tactics
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    edited November 2017
    Looks like Oz will be suspended from the League of English speaking, non-suntanned Gentlemen.

    'Australia knocks UK Brexit trade plan'

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42121442

    Thoughts with Dan Hannah at this difficult time.
  • Mr. Observer, 'manage their sphere of influence'?

    Hmm. They're ignoring their promises to Hong Kong and annexed territory that doesn't belong to them.

    Of course, China's immensely powerful right now so they may well keep what they've taken. But it's not 'management'. It's a land grab (well, sea grab) for resources.

    It is and there is nothing anyone can do about it. We may not like it, but China has a sphere of influence and will not take kindly to that being challenged. Beyond that, though, the Chinese have little to no interest in getting actively involved. They will cultivate personal relationships inside existing ruling elites - in Africa and elsewhere - to ensure others do the heavy lifting on their behalf. They have zero motivation to export "Chinese values". That makes them very different to previous superpowers.

    I would agree, but China is adapting to Western ideas too, in terns of values and not just capitalism. Christianity is on the rise there, and usually of a Protestant Evangelical form.

    Christianity is potentially a dangerous idea for the Chinese. If the teachings of Christ come first, loyalty to the state can only come second. But as we are seeing in Alabama currently, Protestant evangalism can cover a multitude of sins!

  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:



    .

    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have aetter equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.

    We have no hard power.

  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    Something that should have been explicitly recognised long ago. The most obvious failure was in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis. Defence spending should have been pared to the bone then (not bothering renewing the nuclear deterrent as well) and foreign policy reshaped accordingly.

    What Britain can effectively do has been lost in the confusion of trying to keep up illusions.

    And now the only foreign policy it has is Brexit. If Britain had a halfway competent prime minister or foreign secretary, a new vision of Britain's place in the world, that would help shape what Brexit looks like, would have been unveiled by now. Instead it is degenerating into a hermit kingdom, unable to cope with the 21st century.
    You think we didn't cut back on defence after 2010? How do you think we ended up with an army of 85k that struggles to keep more than 8k in the field for any length of time?
    Britain retained delusions of global power (hence Libya and Syria). An appropriate size of British armed forces would not be able to think of such excursions.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:




    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    Something that should have been explicitly recognised long ago. The most obvious failure was in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis. Defence spending should have been pared to the bone then (not bothering renewing the nuclear deterrent as well) and foreign policy reshaped accordingly.

    What Britain can effectively do has been lost in the confusion of trying to keep up illusions.

    And now the only foreign policy it has is Brexit. If Britain had a halfway competent prime minister or foreign secretary, a new vision of Britain's place in the world, that would help shape what Brexit looks like, would have been unveiled by now. Instead it is degenerating into a hermit kingdom, unable to cope with the 21st century.
    You think we didn't cut back on defence after 2010? How do you think we ended up with an army of 85k that struggles to keep more than 8k in the field for any length of time?
    More to the point, threats change and technology advances. You could have a standing army of a million soldiers but if wars are no longer fought in trenches it won't make a great deal of difference. I am by no means an expert, but I fear that in many areas (robotic warfare, AI, cyber esponage) we are not evolving and adapting and there is a great risk that our entire defence capabilities will become obsolete.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    daodao said:

    HYUFD said:



    What an absurd proposal? The UK is still the 5th largest economy in the world and still contributes above its weight in UN peacekeeping operations etc. It would be a catastrophic error to give up our UN Security Council seat especially as only we could voluntarily do so. Once on the Security Council no nation can be removed except voluntarily.

    Expand the UN Security Council to include India (provided Pakistan does not veto of course), Japan and Germany and Brazil by all means but do not give up the UK seat.

    The UK should stop posturing on the world stage - it can no longer afford to do so. It should hand over its remaining overseas territories to suitable local countries (e.g. Gibraltar to Spain, the Cyprus bases to Turkey), and the 6 counties to Eire (which solves the Brexit Irish border problem) and redesign its military forces to be based solely in GB and to be solely for the defence of GB.
    I'm intrigued you suggest handing over the Cypriot bases to Turkry rather than, say, Cyprus.

    Why do you suggest that?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    Something that should have been explicitly recognised long ago. The most obvious failure was in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis. Defence spending should have been pared to the bone then (not bothering renewing the nuclear deterrent as well) and foreign policy reshaped accordingly.

    What Britain can effectively do has been lost in the confusion of trying to keep up illusions.

    And now the only foreign policy it has is Brexit. If Britain had a halfway competent prime minister or foreign secretary, a new vision of Britain's place in the world, that would help shape what Brexit looks like, would have been unveiled by now. Instead it is degenerating into a hermit kingdom, unable to cope with the 21st century.
    You think we didn't cut back on defence after 2010? How do you think we ended up with an army of 85k that struggles to keep more than 8k in the field for any length of time?
    Britain retained delusions of global power (hence Libya and Syria). An appropriate size of British armed forces would not be able to think of such excursions.
    One thing that Corbyn has right is his isolationist foreign policy.

  • Charles said:

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    The Chinese model of buying up Africa does not require military power, simply economic power and a willingness to deal with local regimes.

    The Chinese are reasonably comfortable with one party kleptocracies like Zim and Angola, but also able to work well in more democratic countries like Zambia. Not always popular, with poor labour practices, but the Zambian Copperbelt is looking prosperous again.
    Yes, it does require a blue water navy (which is precisely why China is building one). Overseas investment on that scale, and the absolute criticality of the products from Africa to the Chinese economy, need protecting. It has to be able to ensure that the goods will arrive. Only a blue water navy can do that.

    It also needs an on-the-ground presence in Africa so that it can, if necessary, intervene to protect its assets and its people. "Buying up Africa" works fine until a regime either decides to do something silly, or loses control. At that point, you need guns.

    The Chinese are very unlikely to put troops on the ground anywhere outside their immediate borders. The much more likely scenario is the identification of senior military personnel inside existing national African armies and ensuring they have a direct benefit in ensuring good relations - on a personal level and also to fund more military spending. That seems to be what has happened in Zimbabwe.

    This is the Chinese way and is called Guanxi. It's a word and concept anyone who does any kind of business in China needs to understand.
    I hope you realise that Guanxi is illegal under UK and US law!!

    Of course. But you can’t understand China and the Chinese if you don’t understand what Guanxi is and how it works.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited November 2017

    Looks like Oz will be suspended from the League of English speaking, non-suntanned Gentlemen.

    'Australia knocks UK Brexit trade plan'

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42121442

    Thoughts with Dan Hannah at this difficult time.

    This from an official from the pro EU, Republican Turnbull administration, whose Liberal/National Coalition is this morning facing not only losing the Queensland state election to Labor but a surge in support for the pro Brexit Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party currently up from 1% to 15% with almost 10% in as conservative voters defect from the Coalition to One Nation.

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-25/queensland-election-live-blog-external-link-article/9193770
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited November 2017


    None of that explains why giving up the seat would be a bad idea. We are a properous mid-sized country in Europe that really doesn’t need to pretend to be anything other than that post-Brexit.

    Actually it all explains why it would be a bad idea. If you believe that the UK can be a force for good in the world (even if at times it does not exercise that power) then it is ludicrous to suggest giving up a powerful seat, from which to project our values, to another nation which may not share our values and which would be given influence over us.

    If, on the other hand, you believe that we are a force for evil or harm then I can see your point but I rather think you would reject that view.

    The third view of course is that the UNSC has no value and should not exist in the first place but again I suspect that is not your view and nor is it mine.
  • HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doingequipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    What an absurd proposal? The UK is still the 5th largest economy in the world and still contributes above its weight in UN peacekeeping operations etc. It would be a catastrophic error to give up our UN Security Council seat especially as only we could voluntarily do so. Once on the Security Council no nation can be removed except voluntarily.

    Expand the UN Security Council to include India (provided Pakistan does not veto of course), Japan and Germany and Brazil by all means but do not give up the UK seat.

    None of that explains why giving up the seat would be a bad idea. We are a properous mid-sized country in Europe that really doesn’t need to pretend to be anything other than that post-Brexit.



    Because the veto that comes with UNSCPM status gives the UK very valuable power with which to protect its interests, at minimal cost.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:



    .

    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?


    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
    Agreed and well put. It would basically mean giving up on NATO. God help the Baltic states.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    SPD says TMerkel can be chancellor if she implements their manifesto

    she has now reached the stage where the CDU has no point, she's like TMay without the strong bargaining position


    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/das-steht-auf-dem-wunschzettel-der-spd-15308558.html
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    The Chinese model of buying up Africa does not require military power, simply economic power and a willingness to deal with local regimes.

    The Chinese are reasonably comfortable with one party kleptocracies like Zim and Angola, but also able to work well in more democratic countries like Zambia. Not always popular, with poor labour practices, but the Zambian Copperbelt is looking prosperous again.
    Yes, it does require a blue water navy (which is precisely why China is building one). Overseas investment on that scale, and the absolute criticality of the products from Africa to the Chinese economy, need protecting. It has to be able to ensure that the goods will arrive. Only a blue water navy can do that.

    It also needs an on-the-ground presence in Africa so that it can, if necessary, intervene to protect its assets and its people. "Buying up Africa" works fine until a regime either decides to do something silly, or loses control. At that point, you need guns.

    The Chinese are very unlikely to put troops on the ground anywhere outside their immediate borders. The much more likely scenario is the identification of senior military personnel inside existing national African armies and ensuring they have a direct benefit in ensuring good relations - on a personal level and also to fund more military spending. That seems to be what has happened in Zimbabwe.

    This is the Chinese way and is called Guanxi. It's a word and concept anyone who does any kind of business in China needs to understand.
    I hope you realise that Guanxi is illegal under UK and US law!!

    Of course. But you can’t understand China and the Chinese if you don’t understand what Guanxi is and how it works.

    It's why I don't do much business in China
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    UK clings on to 5th in nominal GDP terms - already 9th in PPP:

    http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php
  • Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
    Military empire building is so nineteenth century. The Chinese simply do not need a military presence in Africa, or on the sea routes. It is a cost financially, and perceived as a threat to local sovereignty, with no upside.

    Modern empires are an economic construct.
    Not quite true: they are free riding on US and UK naval activities (anti-piracy) in the Straits of Mallaca and off the Horn of Africa.*

    * that's why the port they are building in Myanmar is so intriguing
    A reliable entry point from Myanmar to China means not having to navigate the straights at Singapore or in Indonesia.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
    Being a global player is very much worth it if you have the capacity to back it up because it means you get to write the rules of the game. However, Britain no longer has that capacity and playing the game is not a leisure activity.
    Something that should have been explicitly recognised long ago. The most obvious failure was in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis. Defence spending should have been pared to the bone then (not bothering renewing the nuclear deterrent as well) and foreign policy reshaped accordingly.

    What Britain can effectively do has been lost in the confusion of trying to keep up illusions.

    And now the only foreign policy it has is Brexit. If Britain had a halfway competent prime minister or foreign secretary, a new vision of Britain's place in the world, that would help shape what Brexit looks like, would have been unveiled by now. Instead it is degenerating into a hermit kingdom, unable to cope with the 21st century.
    You think we didn't cut back on defence after 2010? How do you think we ended up with an army of 85k that struggles to keep more than 8k in the field for any length of time?
    Britain retained delusions of global power (hence Libya and Syria). An appropriate size of British armed forces would not be able to think of such excursions.
    Absurd. France and Britain were THE main contributors to intervention in Libya and the biggest behind the US and Russia in Syria outside the neighbouring powers.
  • HYUFD said:

    Looks like Oz will be suspended from the League of English speaking, non-suntanned Gentlemen.

    'Australia knocks UK Brexit trade plan'

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42121442

    Thoughts with Dan Hannah at this difficult time.

    This from an official from the pro EU, Republican Turnbull administration, whose Liberal/National Coalition is this morning facing not only losing the Queensland state election to Labor but a surge in support for the pro Brexit Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party currently up from 1% to 15% with almost 10% in as conservative voters defect from the Coalition to One Nation.

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-25/queensland-election-live-blog-external-link-article/9193770
    Brexiteers, holidng out hope for electoral success for right wing, nationalist parties across the globe.

  • None of that explains why giving up the seat would be a bad idea. We are a properous mid-sized country in Europe that really doesn’t need to pretend to be anything other than that post-Brexit.

    Actually it all explains why it would be a bad idea. If you believe that the UK can be a force for good in the world (even if at times it does not exercise that power) then it is ludicrous to suggest giving up a powerful seat, from which to project our values, to another nation which may not share our values and which would be given influence over us.

    If, on the other hand, you believe that we are a force for evil or harm then I can see your point but I rather think you would reject that view.

    The third view of course is that the UNSC has no value and should not exist in the first place but again I suspect that is not your view and nor is it mine.

    Yep - fair points. You have changed my mind!

  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:



    .

    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have aetter equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.

    We have no hard power.

    The UNSCPM veto is of itself hard power.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited November 2017
    calum said:

    UK clings on to 5th in nominal GDP terms - already 9th in PPP:

    http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php

    Unless you're into ego boosting empire building, here is the one that counts:

    http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp-capita.php

    Look at Ireland :open_mouth: $62k vs UK $37.8k.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .

    .
    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we

    Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us

    What an absurd proposal? The UK is still the 5th largest economy in the world and still contributes above its weight in UN peacekeeping operations etc. It would be a catastrophic error to give up our UN Security Council seat especially as only we could voluntarily do so. Once on the Security Council no nation can be removed except voluntarily.

    Expand the UN Security Council to include India (provided Pakistan does not veto of course), Japan and Germany and Brazil by all means but do not give up the UK seat.

    None of that explains why giving up the seat would be a bad idea. We are a properous mid-sized country in Europe that really doesn’t need to pretend to be anything other than that post-Brexit.

    No along with France we are the main European military powers in NATO and main western European presence on the UN Security Council. That brings with it responsibilities unchanged by Brexit. Indeed post Brexit we need to show our commitment to the wider world even more so.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
    Military empire building is so nineteenth century. The Chinese simply do not need a military presence in Africa, or on the sea routes. It is a cost financially, and perceived as a threat to local sovereignty, with no upside.

    Modern empires are an economic construct.
    Not quite true: they are free riding on US and UK naval activities (anti-piracy) in the Straits of Mallaca and off the Horn of Africa.*

    * that's why the port they are building in Myanmar is so intriguing
    A reliable entry point from Myanmar to China means not having to navigate the straights at Singapore or in Indonesia.
    The Burma road is also well situated for developing inland China, as closer than their own coast.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    A really interesting article. Thank you.
  • Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Penddu said:

    Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.

    It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.

    And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.

    However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
    Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
    Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
    Military empire building is so nineteenth century. The Chinese simply do not need a military presence in Africa, or on the sea routes. It is a cost financially, and perceived as a threat to local sovereignty, with no upside.

    Modern empires are an economic construct.
    Not quite true: they are free riding on US and UK naval activities (anti-piracy) in the Straits of Mallaca and off the Horn of Africa.*

    * that's why the port they are building in Myanmar is so intriguing
    A reliable entry point from Myanmar to China means not having to navigate the straights at Singapore or in Indonesia.
    The Burma road is also well situated for developing inland China, as closer than their own coast.
    That's a good point too.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:



    .

    And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
    What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?

    Our major foreign policy is to stay as close as possible to the US. This has been our policy since WW2 and it is both realistic and beneficial. It has allowed us to punch massively above our weight in the intelligence sphere, to play a major role in NATO and minor roles in the ME and elsewhere. Of course, it is not perfect, particularly when the US elects someone like Trump or W that we struggle to get.

    On a much lower level we have tried to make a success of the Commonwealth. Whether we have got much out of that to date is open for debate but it may prove useful in the future. We have become a major player in aid which has given us a say in many trouble spots where our military interventions have been negligible. We have tried to promote green policies in respect of both global warming, conservation and now plastics. We have quite a lot to say and many are willing to listen for a variety of reasons.

    Hopefully, one BrexitChinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.

    I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.

    Yep. We have aetter equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.

    It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.

    We have no hard power.

    The UNSCPM veto is of itself hard power.

    Yep, as per my post to Mr Tyndall, my mind is changed. The veto is key. I’d not really thought about it before. It’s a shame we’re giving up our EU one, but that’s another story ...

  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    The idea that Britain can retreat from being involved in wars that do not provoke an immediate threat to its own survival is totally delusional.

    How would we deal with Islamic State 2? Just leave it to some other country to deal with and hope that they fix it for us without making any contribution?

    What happens if Russia invades Finland. Do we just do nothing?

    Or the Chinese build a military base in Ireland. Nothing to worry about there?

    Ultimately, the threat just ends up on your doorstep, one way or the other.
This discussion has been closed.