Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
"Does the UK remain a world power?"
Topic Started: Apr 16 2015, 01:21 PM (430 Views)
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32317703
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
No, it doesn't even remain a significant power in the British Isles. It died not from outside action, but from wilful internal neglect, lack of belief and national suicide.

It's voice counts for nothing at the UN, NATO or EU, as it isn't backed with any sort of real hard power or the will to use it.

The article itself is full of the BBC position that the death of Britain is a good thing, that soft power is useful and that deploying half a dozen strike fighters to conduct occasional aerial raids over Syria is in any way a meaningful contribution.

How did it die? Neglect of the traditional functions of the state and a bipartisan gleeful cutting of the instruments of defence are one cause. The Little Englander complex or its modern variety is another. Trying to run Iraq and Afghanistan on peacetime budgets is another.

But above and beyond those is the shift in national will. Britain has changed palpably in the last 15-20 years in so many ways. It no longer believes in itself, no longer believes that it is in any way, shape or form Great or different and no longer wants to pay any price.

Britain in 1995 was a different country, with greater capacity to react to international events. It lead and was listened to. It deployed a (light) armoured division to the Gulf in 1990, was one of the prime movers in the Balkans and had respectable military forces. The 1997 election of New Labour saw a foreign policy of liberal interventionism in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, with Britain being a genuine player.

The Strategic Defence Review of 1998 reinforced the notion of an outwardly facing power, with the orders for CVF and 12 Type 45s, along with other bits and pieces. There were certain cuts, such as to the TA, the nuclear arsenal, tactical nuclear bombs and frontline tank numbers, but nothing major.

The 2003 White Paper hacked into the RN to fund the cost of operations in the Middle East and started to reduce the other two services in the countering terrorism. Serious world powers do not cut the frontline strength of their Army by 10% whilst in the middle of two wars.

Up until 2010, we saw a reduction in defence spending that created the procurement black hole. As combat operations decreased in Iraq and increased in Afghanistan, spending remained steady.

The economic crisis and subsequent change of government lead to defence being slashed. There are no votes in defence in Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. The position of Secretary of State for Health or Welfare is seen as more important and prestigious.

Now here we are 5 years later, with further cuts contemplated to what is now the skeleton of the force of 1995-1997. No competent country should confirm the order of a pair of aircraft carriers and not have them in service 18 years later. Even with Russia pushing in the Ukraine and sniffing around the Baltics, there is talk of further cuts; foreign aid, the NHS and other sacred cows are ring fenced.

But what of will and the fundamental changes in British society, culture, politics and how it views itself? Those are the rub of the matter. If the hardware had remained around, it wouldn't solve the issue. If it was simply a matter of 20 years of poor spending choices and mismanagement, then it could be turned around in 10 years of rearmament. However, with a changed nation, it is unlikely that such choices will be offered, let alone contemplated.

The Blair Government's policy of changing the face of Britain through mass immigration ("rub the Tories' faces in diversity" as it was put internally) has certainly succeeded. There is are significant internal issues regarding various ethnic/religious sections of the population, a strident Scottish effort to breakaway and destroy what is left of the United Kingdom (devolution again being a Labour policy aimed at electoral success) and a definite cultural shift away from traditional values, self reliance and service.

I can't see it changing without something on the level of a 15 year Thatcheresque period of social reconstruction and reinvention. Even that might not be sufficient, given that there are some genies that won't go back into the bottle.

Up until the late 1960s, Britain was the third or fourth power in the world and the foremost in Europe. Well behind the superpowers due to sheer scale and half a hundred other issues, but still a (nuclear) power not just in Europe and the North Atlantic, but in Africa, the Middle East and the Far East. The period 1965-1979 did some great damage to Britain economically, politically and socially, but with the right leadership, it was able to bounce back in the 1980s.

Even in 1989, Britain could be said to have remained a great power with interests around the world. The post Cold War peace dividend was predictable and understandable. However, this time, the "postwar" downturn in power was followed not by gradual rebuilding, but by 25 years of cuts on top of cuts on top of cuts. You cannot do something for a quarter of a century and not have a long term impact.

In conclusion, it comes down to having the tools and the willingness to use them. Britain has neither. It could rebuild the former to some pale shadow of what it had 20 years ago. I don't see the latter changing in any positive way.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Having the will to do something is sine qua non for many things, whether in geopolitics or everyday life.

One might ask, if lack of will is the primary issue, why has it manifested so strongly in the last twenty years after a particularly troubling period following Suez and then the resurgence in the 1980s? Is it a cyclical cultural phenomenon destined to go further with each cycle?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
Not necessarily.

Suez was a wake up call that many responded to by cutting off their nose to spite their face; even then, it was more the economic circumstances of the late 1960s that lead to the pull out from East of Suez. The 1970s was when all the economic, social and industrial chickens came home to roost; the fundamentals of the nation still remained strong and the toys were all there, even if some had been thrown out of the bathtub.

This is different. This isn't simply a case of introspection, the kind that strikes the USA as well from time to time. This is transformative. The very nature of the people of Britain has been changed so that, even as electorates change and evolve over time, the effects were greatly magnified.

Political discourse has shifted leftwards and isolationist, taking with it spending priorities; the culture of welfare has had a profoundly negative effect; there are wideranging issues with particular elements of the Muslim minority that have a bearing out of scale with their percentage of the population; mass immigration from Eastern Europe and the wider world has pushed public systems to breaking point; and the culture wars were long ago fought and lost to liberal orthodoxy.

Profligate public spending and a nasty recession are not unique to Britain, but magnify the issues above.

It is recovering economically, having overtaken France to the 5th largest economy in the world. It has the capacity to be a great power, but refuses to be one. With an economy of ~ $3 trillion, 3% of GDP would give a defence budget of $90 billion, rather than the current level of $62 billion. Britain is more than a barely middling power, as the article characterizes it, but has turned its eyes inward and castrated itself in contrition for past sins of being an Empire and a Great Power.

It has been able to do this because of the cover provided by the USA, just as Australia (1.8%), Canada (1.1%), France (2.2%), Germany (1.2%), Italy (1.5%) and Japan (1%) have done.

Britain is not completely gone yet; give it 10 years of a Milliband Labour government and things would be dire.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lelouch

If I recall, at the very least the UK was only able to contribute to around 2 weeks of the Libyan Air Campaign before it started having to draw on "NATO Stocks".

It is definitely not a Military Power, with many of its former subjects being either vastly more powerful(India, Pakistan), or right around the same punching weight(South Africa, UAE, Egypt, Israel). In that respect, its probably one of the least deserving members of a UNSC Permanant Seat, however its quoted "special relationship" will most likely see it retain such a spot for a great while longer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
I wouldn't say any of those cited nations have any sort of power projection capacity, with the inclusion of Pakistan and South Africa quite amusing. Britain and France are historical vestigial tails as UNSC members; the whole concept of the UN is an anachronism.

The special relationship doesn't exist in the eyes of the Americans and half the British political establishment wishes it would disappear so they can focus on hospital queues and more interesting issues.
Edited by Simon Darkshade, Apr 17 2015, 04:17 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Well, it doesn't exist in the eyes of some Americans. ;)

It is rather like the Monroe Doctrine: something from yesteryear that was/is quite important in Atlantic diplomacy, but which is either not discussed very much anymore or is thought to be out of date and worth discarding. The latter seems to be the case nowadays, what with the recent Cuban and Panama conferences. One can only wonder if that will change.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
The political establishment of the last 7 years has the strong potential to roll over into the political establishment of the next 9 years, which would settle the matter quite conclusively.

It will still be occasionally mentioned to make British Prime Ministers feel better, but it will be like the Holy Roman Empire - not Holy, not Roman and not an Empire. For any 'special relationship' to work, both parties need to benefit from it. At the moment, the Americans gain nothing from the British, who have comparatively little to offer.

That is a function of the gleeful manner in which the Europeans have hacked away at defence and the sheer capability gap between the United States and the rest of the world. The RN may have two supercarriers in 5 years time and the MN one, but they are inferior in capability and the size and power of their air wings compared to the 9 or so CVNs operated by the USN. The RN's capacity to launch Tomahawk strikes is limited to the small number of missiles that can be carried on some SSNs, rather than having a dual purpose surface combatant fleet.

The United States remains the only Western democracy where there are votes in defence and foreign policy.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lelouch

Simon Darkshade
Apr 17 2015, 04:14 AM
I wouldn't say any of those cited nations have any sort of power projection capacity, with the inclusion of Pakistan and South Africa quite amusing. Britain and France are historical vestigial tails as UNSC members; the whole concept of the UN is an anachronism.

The special relationship doesn't exist in the eyes of the Americans and half the British political establishment wishes it would disappear so they can focus on hospital queues and more interesting issues.
South America in terms of Military Power is fielding Frigates of roughly the same capability, is looking into Power Projection via VTOL Carriers, and in many ways fielding a Self-Sufficient Defense Industry that is more capable than the British Establishment which has either been sold to Foreign Powers, or simply rotted to the state where it takes 18-20 years for a Carrier to be designed/built, and when it finally does arrive it will not even have a full Air Wing.

Pakistan, if anything is an underrated power by many people. Boasting the Third, or Maybe Fourth Largest Airforce in Asia, with over 140 4++ Generation Fighters(Larger than The UK+Germany field around 234 Combined. Then you throw in the Pakistani Back-Line of Modernized MiGs, and you will find it is capable of fielding 450~ Fighters, not to mention its strike assets, and in air refueling capabilities. Add into that its increasing Naval and Land Capabilities and you will probably come to the conclusion it has either already eclipsed the UK, or is about to soon.



As to the concept of British Power Projection, I am fairly certain that its anchored to the locations of RN/RAF Bases, or alternatively follows the wake of the USN.


The Special Relationship is much less dead on the American Side than on the British. Culturally the United States has phases where it either gets Royal Fever, or just aspects of British Culture randomly gain traction. There is also a large concern for the well being of Britain, as well as Israel as they are both regarded as long-term Stratiegic American Partners.

On the British Side, I feel as if the British Populace would be completely fine burning the relationship to the ground, pissing on its ashes, and then offering them to the EU as some sort of attempt to either A. Leave, or B. Integrate Further.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
South Africa isn't South America and has never had carriers. The South African Navy operates some Mekos that are good so long as they never have to go into action and are far less capable than the Type 23s, let alone the Type 45s. They don't have a naval tradition, naval aviation, submarines, rapid deployment forces, modern fighters, stand off weapons. Denel isn't BAe; it has some nice howitzers, but isn't in the same league. South Africa is also not the most successful state in the world.

Pakistan is a bona fide failed state that can't even project power a few miles away from its military academy. I'm not sure where you are pulling your figures from, but the PAF F-16s are not 4++ generation fighters; they only have a squadron and a bit worth of F-16Cs.
Chicom Mig-21 clones and Mirage 5s are not frontline aircraft; the Typhoons and Tornadoes are frontline aircraft. The PAF do not have AWACs of their own; the RAF does. The Pakis have 4 Illyushin tankers; the RAF has 14.

There are trees that you should bark up and there are trees you shouldn't bark up. These two are the wrong ones to bark up.

The Obama Administration has done a lot to kill off the notion of the Special Relationship. A little bit of cultural squee-ing is not a substitute. The current management of the USA has made it clear that it doesn't need Britain and is currently trying to shift horses away from Israel.

Both the pro and anti EU factions of British politics want to 'stand up to the Americans' out of some misplaced juvenile resistance to the past/the world/imperialism/The Man, but neither option (the glorious EU superpower or nothing at all) has much connection to real British interests or reality.

It comes down to this: Outside the USA, which other power could deploy a brigade sized force anywhere necessary in the world with their own amphibious shipping, a carrier battlegroup and cruise missile armed nuclear submarines, with the capacity to back it up with land based strike fighters and world class special forces. None at the moment. The British and the French are the only real contenders and the French are currently on a downward ebb just at the time when Britain is slightly recovering.

If the USA is 100, then the next best number is 12, to pull out a broad classification of what can be done. 12 doesn't seem much as compared to 100, but it is bigger than 2 or 3.
Edited by Simon Darkshade, Apr 17 2015, 01:50 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewington
Member Avatar

Your initial analysis was spot on Simon.

Yesterday I had the (mis)fortune of watching the second debate for the upcoming general election with all four main left-wing parties plus UKIP tagging along for the ride. It was absolutely farcical. The leadership of all the parties poised to win seats have no basis is in reality. UKIP is the last breath of the old Britain that Simon mentioned, and it will come to pass before long.

The Scots are convinced that the United Kingdom is what stands between them and some sort of socialist utopia, where oil will provide the citizenry with a premium welfare state.

Unfortunately, it seems to be that the malady that has firmly established its root within the Commonwealth countries has begun to seep into the United States. While there have always been the left-wing types that have scoffed at America, it has finally found its way into the government.

The President simply does not believe that the United States is an exceptional nation. Neither Obama nor some others on the left believe that the United States has moral authority of the rest of the world.

Even the left-wing members of society are unwilling to export their values internationally, despite being ready to demonize their political opponents here.

I think that Stephen Harper is the type of leader that all of the Anglosphere nations need at the moment. However his hands are bound by an unwilling populace.
Edited by Lewington, Apr 17 2015, 11:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
The amusing thing is that the collapse in oil prices that puts paid to the question of how to pay for said utopia is either ignored or denied as "Westminster propaganda". Labour, the Welsh and Scots nationalists, the Greens and the Lib Dems are all forthrightly opposed to the notion of Britain playing any role in the world, to America and to any more on defence.

The same goes for a significant number of left wing Tories. Only the Conservative backbench inside Parliament and UKIP outside can be said to have a net positive view on hard power and the need for it. With the nature of the electoral system, it doesn't matter what the majority of people think.

Harper is good and I hope he stays. He is what Mr Abbott could be without an obstructionist Senate.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
I think the thing about exceptionalism that ticks off a lot of people is its presumed exclusivity. Hence, why Obama said "I believe in American exceptionalism in the same way I suspect the Brits believed in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believed in Greek exceptionalism."

But it does not need to be exclusive. It is simply recognizing that there are differences and trying to be different by adhering to a different set of values.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32428031

A very interesting take on the 150th anniversary of the Civil War and its reception in America, versus the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in Britain.

Some of the points are quite valid and some seem rather strange. For one, it is difficult to believe the UK is more united and cohesive than the United States. For all our greater racial and geographic diversity, we don't, as yet, have a significant and organized minority with national representation that is actively trying to secede from the Union.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBK
Member Avatar

The problems with the UK stem partly from political problems but also from ones which are for more deeply ingrained. The main thing I have noticed since living there is the very peculiar school system. The 'public' private schools do not turn out the kind of brains a modern society needs. It used to, before 1939, but now it is a hopelessly archaic and ineffective system of schooling (Correlli Barnett is particularly good on this point). One simple example which I have observed numerous times is that public school boys are incapable of communicating and interacting normally with women. While that might not have been a problem in the 1920's it is debilitating now.

Another problem with the public school system is that, because anyone of any influence sends it children there, real public schools are hopelessly ill equipped to give their pupils a proper education. This in turn means that a large section of Britain's intellectual potential is never discovered or utilized. This is only made up, at the moment, by foreign students coming in and then staying in Britain. Many from the EU.

Another problem is an over-reliance on the banking sector in the British economy: cut London out of the Britain and it becomes like Greece. Real production is extremely rare. Whereas the Germans actually produce a large amount of industrial goods this simply is not the case for Britain. There is pharmaceutical industry and Rolls Royce aircraft engines and that is more or less where it stops. Now I suspect this is because there has been no effort since Thatcher to revive the North or Wales. Some parts of those regions compare with Romania or Poland. Nine out of ten poorest regions in Northern Europe (Netherlands, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, Ireland and Denmark) are in the UK. These regions are, at the moment, totally unproductive and only cost the state money. The only way to move on for these regions is a massive government action to get things going, like the French government did for the North of France which is now truly picking up.

Military might can only be built upon solid economic foundations, something which Britain in it present state lacks.
Edited by JBK, Sep 14 2015, 03:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

JBK
Sep 14 2015, 03:36 PM
One simple example which I have observed numerous times is that public school boys are incapable of communicating and interacting normally with women.
Ah, so sort of like me.

I've heard a lot of evidence suggesting that the destruction of the grammar school system (which wasn't too far different from what Germany has now) and move to these comprehensives has been a real blow to British education, denying a lot of good education and mobility to anyone but those who can afford to move to get their children in better schools.

In a lot of ways I actually agree that a nation has got to manufacture in order to be sustainable, although finance has always, always, been a part of the British economic strength, even well before Britain was actually Britain. That all being said, though, I'm not certain to what extent it is viable to push manufacturing if it is simply not economically competitive in the markets in which they need to be sold. If Britain went about starting to rebuild the Royal Navy again, however, at home, that'd be useful, and a good start.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBK
Member Avatar

Well, one simple example I can think off where Britain could improve enormously and something which would put allot of people back to work is improving the housing stock. British houses are some of the worst I have seen. Certainly not something I would expect from a wealthy country. Some examples: double glazing and insulation is non-existent, taps are still limited to a hot water spout and a cold water spout instead of having them together in one unit. I lived in a house built in the same year in the UK as my parental home in the Netherlands (1974). The British one was inferior in every way. The walls weren't even straight!

The Brits also take baths instead of showers. The money wasted on heating, electricity and water must be huge.

Surly a campaign to improve this kind of thing would not only increase consumer spending in the short run as they spend on the insulation and housing improvements but also in the long run as their energy bill goes down dramatically? Both of which are good for the economy and would put a lot of unemployed to work.

Edit: Something else I thought of: The Brits in generally only speak one language. If a country expects to be an important trading country its population simply must speak more than only one language. Speaking someone else's language also allows you to understand their national idea's and peculiarities better as they are reflected in their language.

Edit II: The same goes for British road and rail infrastructure which is shocking. How can an economy work when basic infrastructure is not in place? One of the busiest cargo highway in the UK, from Dover to London has traffic lights on it. This is a 70mph road full or lorry's and then everyone has to stop for TRAFFIC LIGHTS because the designers of the road did not fork out the extra money to build a bridge so that other traffic could cross without hampering the traffic flow. The roads are also full of potholes and public transportation is a joke. For a daily commuter its cheaper to use a car which leads to congestion and the associated drop in productivity.

Edit III: Teen age pregnancy. I am not sure if this is supported by numbers but I have the feeling that teen age pregnancy is also very high in Britain. This in turn burdens the well fare system and takes normally fit people out of the work force. This, I feel, must be due to a lack of sexual education.
Edited by JBK, Sep 14 2015, 04:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
I'm not familiar enough with the British educational system to comment meaningfully. What sort of social clumsiness do the boys display today? What would you say is causing that, within the system itself? It seems to be an increasingly common phenomenon. I've heard it variously attributed to the Internet, popular culture, texting and e-mail, bad parenting, a decline in culture and morals... there are more explanations than there are Republican candidates for president.

Speaking more than one language is one criticism I've definitely never heard leveled at (modern) Britain. But then, we Americans are among the worst at learning foreign languages, myself included. It may be that Britain still is better. In any case it doesn't seem to be much of a hindrance over here, though I suppose in Europe it would matter a lot more.

Based purely on our own domestic stats, I'd somehow doubt whether teenage pregnancy is caused by poor sex education. If anything it probably correlates more with poverty.

And, baths? Mais oui. The British are just showing themselves heirs of Roman civilization. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

I suppose that does explain why I enjoy a good bath more than I do showers... hah.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lelouch

Random Necrotic Post, but I see now that I was talking about South America, and Simon about South Africa.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · History · Next Topic »
Add Reply