Melanie Phillips: Wow! [BETWEEN GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES AND CONTINENTAL POLICING]

Melanie Phillips ^ | December 10, 2004 | Melanie Phillips

[Tolik]

The New Frontiers Foundation think-tank has published an utterly extraordinary and brilliant essay [NEW FRONTIERS IN DEFENCE: BETWEEN GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES AND
CONTINENTAL POLICING] which should be compulsory reading for all in Britain’s power elites. It is the most important document I have seen produced by anyone in government for a very long time. It has been written anonymously by someone described only as ‘a senior UK official who has worked on issues of foreign and security policy for most of his professional life’. He has delivered a powerful cri de coeur that Britain, having never recovered from its post-Suez nervous breakdown and now paralysed by the choice between two diametrically opposing philosophies of the world represented by Europe and America, is in grave danger of siding with Europe and thus destroying its security and gravely weakening the western alliance. For the west, he says, is far from united:

‘Between America, Britain, and the EU, there is little agreement on current ideology and philosophy, future threats, or developing capabilities. This makes any sense of a coherent vision and purpose for the West increasingly difficult to sustain and throws a cloud over current alliances.’

Whoever this man is, he displays a profound insight into threats we face from both without and from within. Unlike so many in the British establishment, he understands the nature of the peril – and the part being played by our intelligentsia in undermining their own culture. Liberal democracy, he says, is fragile:

‘We humans are not rational and the suicide bomber is here to stay, it can only be contained… Further, many, particularly among the best educated, preserve either deep ambivalence or active contempt for the traditions supporting liberal democracy, making it susceptible to challenge and collapse by some sort of systemic economic and security challenge as occurred in the 1930’s.’

He understands the utter foolishness of the new orthodoxy in Britain and Europe of seeking to rely upon international law as substitute for war:

‘International law will not prove a salvation from conflict, nor will the two organisations dedicated to its spread – the UN and the EU. Both suffer dual problems: a legitimacy problem, given that legitimacy in the West relates to democratic accountability and neither organisation is democratically accountable; and an enforcement problem, given that both seek to minimise the power of the individual state but both rely on individual states. Further, international law is making it harder to conduct military operations by applying what are often inappropriate legal concepts to violent situations not susceptible to solution by civilian methods (the dilemma of “warfighting” or “peacekeeping”).’

He understands that the western media have become fifth columnists:

‘The transmission of information to enemies and terrorist groups is a paradoxical consequence of our open economies and requires new responses. It may also prove that, despite our superior technology, enemies nevertheless succeed in outperforming our decision-making either by shifting the nature of the conflict such that our technological advantage (in sensors etc) is denied (eg. Somalia), or by using our own media to paralyse our morale and decision-making (eg. partially in Serbia, now in Iraq). We should not assume we will win Information Wars just because we are better at producing IT.’

He understands that, to offset his inability to persuade the British public to sign up to the euro, Tony Blair may seek to placate Europe by surrendering to it instead our ability to defend ourselves as an independent nation. Unlike our eurofanatic Foreign Office, this man understands that the EU is simultaneously setting itself up as a rival to the US, thus undermining NATO, while proving unable or unwilling to develop an effective replacement defence apparatus:

‘These issues are sharpened by conflict between American visions of “warfighting”, European visions of “peacekeeping” and different attitudes towards international law rooted in different philosophical foundations and historical experience. The likely outcome of this is that the EU further undermines NATO and transatlantic relations generally as the EU planning cell grows, there is greater pressure for EU forces to be interoperable and to harmonise equipment, the EU culturally identifies itself as in competition with America, while defining its mission in terms of a return to the gunboat diplomacy of the past – “humanitarian interventions” and a return to Africa.

‘The UK seems increasingly bewildered and paralysed about how to These issues are sharpened by conflict between American visions of “warfighting”, European visions of “peacekeeping” and different attitudes towards international law rooted in different philosophical foundations and historical experience. The likely outcome of this is that the EU further undermines NATO and transatlantic
relations generally as the EU planning cell grows, there is greater pressure for EU forces to be interoperable and to harmonise equipment, the EU culturally identifies itself as in competition with America, while defining its mission in terms of a return to the gunboat diplomacy of the past – “humanitarian interventions” and a return to Africa.’

And he warns:

‘Britain should reject EU integration (including EMU and the Constitution) on the basic rounds that: (1) the current path is undemocratic; (2) it is creating a regulatory structure that is smothering growth and is very hard to reform (rather than encouraging Hayekian institutional competition); (3) current European defence visions, based on small forces doing peacekeeping and grand rhetoric about multipolarity, are not a responsible answer to the threats of global disorder – we should pursue the means to have a real effect, not wallow in irresponsible posturing.’

Europe and America now have radically different views of the world, of human nature and of moral agency. From this writer’s masterly analysis it is clear that Europe is finished – not least because one of the reasons it now refuses to defend itself militarily is that it is unwilling to sustain any losses, since its populations have fallen below replacement level and it is relying instead on immigration to keep going – a process that will ultimately lead to its Islamicisation.

This is his sobering conclusion:

‘It may well be that the inherent nature of our culture renders such an alliance is doomed to fail. Given the hostility of much of educated opinion for the values of liberal democracy and competitive markets, it may prove impossible ever to forge sufficient unity of purpose – at least without the fear of destruction by an enemy. Without some such attempt, however, there is the danger of a repeat of the 1930’s experience and its terrible sequel as security and economic crises challenge the foundations of liberal democracy in this Century. There was no coherent entity to combat Nazism in the thirties. NATO did this job against Communism but is no longer suited to the role unless it is itself transformed. Mankind endlessly repeats errors but it is worth our effort in the UK to attempt to forge a new alliance before we again feel confronted by a mortal enemy, or feel his first blow. Changing attitudes in American policy elites and the potential openness of new EU members to a new approach provides an opportunity – but only if this country can rediscover a sense of self-confidence and optimism about our capacity to improve our world.’

There is much, much more of this. Read it all. The good news is that someone somewhere in the upper reaches of the British foreign policy or defence establishment has grasped all this so acutely. The bad news is that he is clearly so isolated that he has to resort to an anonymous essay to get this warning into the public domain.

But what he has given us is not merely an exceptionally valuable piece of analysis. It is a manifesto for a political party that seeks to understand the precise nature of the threats facing the west since the fall of communism and the rise of Islamism – and the fact that the current government is on the wrong side of the argument. This document should be mailed to every Tory MP, and the shadow Cabinet should discuss it at length. For it shows once and for all how absurd it is for them to believe that Blair has parked his tanks on the Tory lawn. The issue is no longer economics and the market. It is no longer tax rises or reductions, God help us, or a bigger or smaller state, or the dire condition of the public services. It is, quite simply, the threat to our civilisation, our nation and our democratic values and traditions from a decadent British and European nomenklatura that no longer has the stomach nor the moral compass in order to uphold them from within, let alone fight to defend them against the threat facing us from without.

It is the great issue of our times. Nothing else matters like this. Where are the politicians who have the ability and the moral courage to grasp it?

[Rummyfan]

Bump for later!

[Old Professer]

Interesting how the author separates human nature and moral agency as though the two are disparate entities; almost a restatement of original sin.

[Publius]

Sounds like it was written by Margaret Thatcher.

[dennisw]

bttttttt

[Tolik]

Interesting article PING!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

[happygrl]

Bookmarked.

I can't get to the article;.the link isn't working. I'll try googling. Their "anonymous" beats our "anonymous" in analysis.

[agere_contra]

try here

I have just read the essay. You Americans come out of it well :0) In fact there is a lot here that Freepers have been saying for a long time.

Old Europe gets panned for its long retreat from reality - the EU issues sonorous pronouncements about the EU becoming the new Hyperpower, whilst its armies remain totally pants and its economy becomes unable to sustain, let alone grow, warfighting capability.

The French are trying to lead euro-Europe in a "return to Africa" and French Hegemony thereof. The countries of New Europe (he doesn't say it, but he means Poland & friends) are our best chance of saving the European landmass politically.

The writer makes a good case for an air-version of the Mahan strategy for the UK (my gloss) involving development and use of Hypersonic drones/UCAVs for non-nuclear projection of global power.

He also makes the excellent point that the liberal/democratic capitalism so embedded in the Anglophone nations is merely skin-deep across much of the rest of the world. Reagan and Thatcher saved it in the 70's and their economic example was a critical example to the rest of the world. But the torch of economic growth is defintely held by the Anglophone nations (my gloss)

There's a lot more (74 pages!): a recommended read

[NilesJo]

You can get a working link at Melanie's website or just paste the following URL into your browser.

The complete paper is about 75 pp long!

http://www.new-frontiers.org/mediacentre/newfrontiersindefence.pdf

[happygrl]

Thanks both for your assistance and your comments.

Having traveled and lived in various parts of the world, I can attest that democracy hasn't really "taken" deeply in most places. I would include Europe in that estimation. The years ahead will prove how thin the veneer is.