January 11, 2021 - 3:16pm
Chatham House, a.k.a. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, is Britain’s premier foreign policy think tank. Today it publishes Global Britain, global broker — a report written by its long-serving director Robin Niblett. It’s tone is exactly what you’d expect from a pillar of our foreign policy establishment: slightly condescending.
Noting the “speed of global change in the past 10 years”, Niblett remarks “what a time for Britain to strike out on its own”. But Britain is not “on its own”. It is part of NATO, the WTO, the Commonwealth and a host of other multilateral organisations. What it is no longer part of is a project to build a supranational state — something that most Britons never agreed to and which few Remainers ever openly defended or even acknowledged.
So what we voted for, first and foremost, is to keep on being ourselves. Nevertheless, for those who insist on countries having a ‘role’ — our exit from the EU requires us to choose a new one. So what should that be?
Niblett doesn’t want us getting any ideas above our station. We must not “reincarnate” ourselves as a “miniature great power” he says. He even finds the language around a “Global Britain” problematic:
So much nonsense in so few words. For a start, the “injustices and inequities” of the British Empire are not only “now” being re-examined — in fact, it’s been decades since we’ve heard much else about it. Also the “minds of many” (whoever they might be) really ought to educate themselves: the “Great” in “Great Britain” has nothing to do with empire. Finally, the official language around a “Global Britain” is there to emphasise that Brexit is not an isolationist project.
It’s obviously not an imperialist project either. So if not ‘empire 2.0’ or ‘Little England’, what are we left with?
Robin Niblett wants the UK to “marshal its resources to be the broker of solutions to global challenges.” There are worst fates than being a super-Switzerland, but our future should be a more dynamic one. This should be a country which makes a virtue out of doing things differently — and even disruptively, where the established order could do with shaking up.
For that reason, and contra-Niblett, we should not align ourselves too closely with the European Union — or the United States for that matter. Indeed, we should set ourselves against the neo-imperial tendencies of all the big trade blocs.
Believe it or not, there is a world beyond the US, EU and China — and it is full of successful, sovereign, democratic nations. So let us be a productive and innovative member of that community.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBritain doesn’t need an empire. We should do what we did in Europe up to 1945, maintain the balance of power. We can do this alongside our allies in the Commonwealth and other powers in Asia.
CANZUK has a combined naval force of 38 frigates, 21 submarines [7 of them the most advanced nuclear fleet submarines in the world], 2 assault carriers, 2 fleet carriers. We also have the foremost intelligence service in the world. Our SIGINT (UKUSA) is at times superior to what America has and is relied upon by them and the rest of the Five Eyes. Work alongside India. Throw in the substantial South Korean and Japanese navies. If diplomacy keeps us reasonably united in purpose, then that’s not exactly small.
Oh, and why should shame for the past make people want us to be smaller? If you feel bad about Britain invading places, then help to make Britain a place that doesn’t invade places. Help make Britain a nation that safeguards the sovereignty of our allies. Make our future something to be proud of. Don’t make us a laughing stock. Sigh.
“If you feel bad about Britain invading places, then help to make Britain a place that doesn’t invade places.” we DO try but Public Opinion is controlled by War Criminals & the Money/Govt & Judiciary….simple as that…USA & Britain have been so stupid & corrupt to see a future in Wars & Territory & not mutual Trade & Friendship & building allegiances… “He who rides the Tiger can never dismount” …all about keeping “the mushroom theory”…Free enterprise is a “fast breeder reactor” so to speak for creating wealth eg Post War Japan et al …Socialism as we have it is in part about creating indolence & “users”.. & state “dependants” & “control” of masses….& which way did we go??? Correct! Losers! …Just keep people stupid with so called “education” & propaganda…& selling the arms & kissing the Evil Empires ass &… “she’ll be right mate” as we say in Oz… Just keep listening to these Chathams…& Bilderberg, CFR, …& Rothschilds, Rockerfellers, HK, & Tri-Latorals…..And go down the Dinosaurs way…good luck!
There seems to be something highly appropriate about the name ‘Niblett’ in this instance. A nibbling little man, devoid of all spirit or vision, and entirely typical of his class of civil servants and think tankers.
This guy Niblett seems at one with the nu-National Trust wanting primary school children to reverse educate its staff on the horrors of racism, (and one presumes sexism, genderism, and culturalism and incomeism, and ageism, Historical and current).
That he not be fired immediately from the Royal institute of international Affairs shows it has become the Royal Institute for Self-Flagellation Affairs, as pretty much everything with any link to being ‘British’ has become..
The future for our small Nation is to (like many other smallish countries) encourage innovation and allow business and trade to expand where they see a market. The major negative to this simple concept is our politicians who are controlled (or stymied) by the civil service. It is they who will as always find ways to make any Enterprise so complex as to be unworkable.
So the answer? Drastically reduce non productive groups. Think tanks and qango’s for a start. Parliament needs no more than 100 MP’s. Likewise the House of Lords. Made up of a cross section of our society. Pay them well and elect every 5 years.
Lots to do, simple but as always the elephant are the senior civil servants I can’t see a way round the massive anchor stopping us setting sail.
I recall politicians of the late 1960s running around like headless chickens, determined to find a new British focus after Empire.
They came up with the battle cry ‘The Future is in Europe.’
So Heath took us in (no referendum, mind) while throwing Australasia to the dogs, as he did the UK fishing industry.
It was that quest for a ‘role’ that led us into ‘Europe’ a semi-detached solution to a non-problem.
Wasn’t there a referendum under Ted Heath in 1975 to stay in ?
Heath was not in power in 1975. It was Wilson who held the referendum.
When I read anything by the likes of this Niblett fellow, my heart just sinks. So little imagination, so little ambition, so little creativity! It would be silly to think Britain can regain its status as a major world power but as far as I can see, no one is pushing that argument, it’s more a Hirngespinst of pessimistic leftists and remainers who hate Britain as a default position. My personal spin on our imperial history and its effect on the modern British consciousness and body politic is as follows: the empire, while gone forever, gives the gift to you of an awareness that there is a big world out there, full of exciting opportunities and it’s all open to you. Being excited about the world doesn’t automatically equate to imperial nostalgia or being deluded about Britain’s significance in the 21st century. It means being at home in the world and beating your own path through the challenges of modernity.
I rather think that this is a rather empty article ‘ a vague solution looking for a vague problem’. The UK is a member of the loose grouping of so called western democracies ( extending to English speaking countries of Australia-New Zealand ). Our future will be determined to a large extent by the direction and shared threats of these countries, the tides and winds that batter or push common interests. Notions of some sort of global role are plain bonkers and a bit of an insult to the needs and priorities of UK citizens – the only role of Government in a non EU Britain is to meet the needs of its citizens by making the most of whatever opportunities etc exist from year to year, decade to decade, etc
I don’t want any of this ‘global’ Britain stuff as a policy at all. I want us to focus on science, innovation, making this country more self-sufficient and a great place to live for its citizens. If any of that is something we can sell elsewhere then great but I just don’t want us to be beholden to anyone else ever again – in my view globalisation has been the worst thing to ever happen, I am sick to the back teeth of it.. I know that sounds parochial but I just don’t care anymore.
So a bit of idle whimsical speculation. On the back of the ever bigger waves of automation driven unemployment that are coming over the decade, most nations will be forced to align with a hegemon in a bi (nominally tri) polar world. This is especially true now because the inevitable Covid-19 induced global depression will force countries’ hand. The exceptions, nations who can remain independent (at least for a couple of decades) along with the UK, are a rather disparate bunch: Japan, India, Russia, S. Korea, Israel, the commodities heavy Anzac and Canada. Brazil just about possibly. Countries like Turkey, SA, etc are unlikely to be able to avoid becoming client states, and the rest have no chance – they won’t be able to fund infrastructure/development in their countries and they can’t make the tech themselves – which ultimately is the rather brutal bottom line of this equation. So forced to go cap in hand to one of the giants who will demand a price in influence or assets going forwards. I suspect China will pick up Indonesia, Philippines, etc and the whole of the steppe all the way to the edge of Europe. South America, mid East to the US. Africa, half and half – China already has deep claws in there but I suspect African countries will find the US more comfortable to deal with. That leaves the question hanging: just who will want to align with the EU?
PS, some might say that’s a lot of words just to troll the EU.
Sounds good – Troll on
Time to drain the swamp me thinks what about starting off with: The Royal Institute of International Affairs – Britain’s premier foreign policy think tank? And however much that place costs the taxpayer per year…..New bus Boris?
The point isn’t stressed that HMG is not welcome in our former possessions. Ireland is a case in point – HMG had troops on the streets until 25 years ago – not in Aden, the Falklands, Germany – part of the UK. It’s coming up to 100 years when a large or part of the UK split (the UK lost more land that day than Weimar Germany after WWI). The comments are territorial – Canada is not part of HMG’s imperial dream, we are nearer Mexico (with whom we have an FTA) than the UK
The framing of debate about *Britain’s role* using that old Dean Ascheson quote; a great one in it’s time, but now over 60 years old, is self serving.
Maybe inside a chin-scratching collective of academic/FO/punditocrats this ‘Empire Nostalgia’ idea is a *thing* but I can only say I have never heard any Leaver , and I know a few, mention anything that feres to *empire* or a new empire, or some new ‘virtual empire’ or anything like it.
Nor do people want a sealed, Little Britain’ either.
Most people I know did not want to be part of an undefined suprastate with barely functioning democractic institutions, a failing single currency whose failures are used as reasons for the need of a single fiscal policy, tax rates and all else across the member nations.
Instead , if they have a worked idea of a role it is a a country building on it’s almost unrivalled soft pwer, and the economy of that, it’s medical, financial, legal and digital services and ready to ally with any other similar like minded countries whether inside the EU, in Europe but outside it, Japan, Canada, and other Commonwealth countries, including India.
Trade with but be free to criticise other countries, whether in the above group or outside in a pragmatically defined series of relationships.
THat’s more the vision thing than some 50 year old lazy prejudice referncing an empir that for even 60 years olds was never a vital concept.
Regrettably, the Danish finance minister got it exactly right a few years ago “There are two kinds of country in Europe now: Those who are too small to make a big difference on their own – and those who have not figured it out yet.” If you want to remain unaligned and “set [y]ourselves against the neo-imperial tendencies of all the big trade blocs” – in other words reorganise the world against the will and interest of all the major players – I can only wish you luck. But even with the diplomatic genius and brilliant strategic skills of Boris Johnson on your side I do suspect you are going to need it.
I can only assume the Danish finance minister hadn’t watched Blackadder the fourth, maybe it should have been given to the Danish parliament as a follow up to “Yes Minister” ? If he/she had taken the time, away from counting beans on their abacus, they might well have noted Blackadders explanation, to Balderick, about the origins of the Great War and that being part of a super block didn’t guarantee anything, or as Blackadder, so succinctly put it, “it was utter bollocks”.
We’ll w***e our allegiance to whoever pays most. We’ve been doing that for decades now anyway. This just means we’ll be doing it freelance rather than contracted to a brothel. It looks like the USA is going to need allies, what with the EU kissing China’s proverbial. But that won’t last long, nothing does these days in global politics.
In that image the EU is not a brothel but a prostitute’s collective. Grouping together gets you better terms and a voice in the policies. You can decide to strike out on your own, but you have better have a very clear idea of your pulling power before you choose to ply your trade on the streets.
No it’s a brothel (or rather its a pimp). It takes a cut of everyone’s earnings and squanders it on fat salaries, expense accounts, fabulously expensive buildings and even fatter pensions as it sees fit
Not so. The EU is an unlovely beast, and like any bureaucracy it has a built-in tendency for self-aggrandisement. But the policies (prices, services offered, condom use, to stay on theme) are still decided by consensus and compromise, not imposed by the owner.
The Danish finance minister and the head of the RIIA both seems to think that wanting to make a big difference is important. Frankly, it’s not. Can’t we just concentrate on governing ourselves competently and letting people get on with their lives, without our leaders feeling the UK needs to project itself in the world or establish some special and important role?
There is a certain type of Brit absolutely consumed with constant assessment of Britain’s place in the world as though it was entirely within Britain’s control. It’s a bit sad and hard to see what causes this. There’s nothing that could happen that would relieve this anxiety because it isn’t based on anything outside the person obsessing over things.
I couldn’t care less about it. In the words of Captain Malcolm Reynolds, ‘we don’t have to beat them, we just want to go our way’. I am sick to the back teeth of globalisation – it’s way too Orwellian for my liking.