school # 5
The political role of Great Britain in modern world
by Timur Saatashvili, 11 “A” grade
The political role of Great Britain in modern world.
Analyzing the current world political situation I wonder why since the beginning of the twentieth century Great Britain, a colonial empire in the past, been losing its influence in the world step by step and nowadays it is worth speaking not about the British political but merely about holding its own current stand? Why doesn’t it want Europe to be united and independent of the US? This problem becomes more urgent nowadays when the American influence’s weakening and the political opponent which prevents us from being a full member of the European society. The U.K. takes part in all international committees in Chechnya. Its territory is used by lots of anti – Russian Wakhabbist organizations that provides Chechen terrorists and separatists. Its subversive activities have the only aim to isolate Russia. And I couldn’t help taking such a theme where I will analyze the British policy, explain it and try to find alternatives for the English foreign political line.
After the Second World War England lost its political independence, becoming an American satellite.
Forming the Anglo – American alliance was especially influenced by the so – called Americanocentrist conceptions by Zbignev Bzhezinski and Nicholas Spikesman.
According to Spikesman’s theory, the geographical authority of any state takes shape by not its inland territories, but coastline. He emphasizes three large centers of world power: the Atlantic Seashore of North America and Europe and the Far East of Eurasia. These territories were called a rimland. This way Great Britain and the US must from an alliance and that was done soon.
Being an American ally, England has become a reliable Fifth Column in the European Union. The British government has been trying its best to prevent Europe from unifying processes, once protesting against founding European Central Bank and the singe European currency “euro” and attempting together with the US to quarrel the European states with one another and to direct their aggression against the third one like Yugoslavia. Due to its pro – American foreign policy, Great Britain has become the second leader of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. right now the U.K. and the US are at the head of all NATO’s military operations, like “The Shield of the desert”, “The Storm in the desert”, in 1991, “The Fox in the desert” in 1998 and the anti – Yugoslavian aggression in 1999. Speaking about the NATO’s last campaign, the U.K. and the US destabilized an ethnic situation in Europe, because during the NATO’s bombardments tens and thousands of thousands of Albanian refugees poured into Germany, Albania and some other countries. That needs no saying, the Albanians from Kosovo and Methokia complicated the social – political situation in these states. Its result was the criminal increase and the growth of unemployment among the immigrants.
This way we can make the only confusion: the foreign policy of Great Britain (i.e. the US) in Europe has the aim to weaken the main integrating power – Russia and Germany as much as possible.
As fro Germany, being a powerful state, it is spreading its economic influence in Chechia, Slovakia and especially in Chernogoria where President Milo Dzuganovich put DM in circulation instead of the Yugoslavian dinar.
Of course, it has weakened the British authority in the Balkan region very much, and the English government cannot ignore it. Unfortunately, the U.K.‘s forgotten it’s not a world power. That is why its actions against every anti – British demarche of European countries are extremely hasty and asymmetrical. Remember Prime – Minister of Great Britain Anthony Blair’s intention of liquidating Russian landing troops in 1999 after having occupied Slatino airport in Prishtina. To my mind it is clear what consequences would have taken place after that.
But why is the British foreign policy so anti – German – Russian? The work “The Geographical Axis of History” by English scientist Halfrod McKinder answers it. According to his theory the alliance of Russia and Germany to struggle for the world power against Great Britain and the US is extremely dangerous and fatal for the last ones. Well now it is clear why the buffer of averagly developed countries between Russia and Germany was formed and what “Truman’s doctrine” was based on.
Thus nowadays the Anglo – American alliance has achieved its aim, dividing our states and making our relations rather difficult and cool.
Following the American foreign political way, England must carry the mutal responsibility for their blunders. The same situation is taking place in Kosovo and Metkhia now. Due to the Anglo – American pro – Albanian and anti – Serbian policy the UCK becomes more and more impudent, firing gat the KFOR’s patrols, occupying Macedonian territory and assaulting tetovo while the NATO’s doing nothing to protect Kosovo and Macedonia and to defeat the UCK because of being only very anxious for its soldiers and nothing more. This way, after the Anglo – American carrions crows’ triumphant air raids to Serbia the NATO cannot cope with a small group of the UCK’s thugs (or does not want to do it) and has to allow the Federal troops of Yugoslavia to patrol Kosovo’s part of Yugoslavian – Macedonian boundaries near Preshevo. Such an embarrassing and foolish situation, of course, has damaged the British authority in the world.
The prospects of the British co – operation with other states.
As a matter of fact there are only two alternatives of the British foreign political development. The first one is changing nothing but England should know nowadays most political analysists agree that soon playing the role of a sort of a oikumena, the US will exert itself to the utmost. The American industry and production cannot compete with the European ones not only in the world but even in its domestic American market. It is the beginning of the political and economic degradation of the USA without which the U.K. means nothing. And it is out of question, no European state will want to deal with the former American satellite. The British future is awful, I think.
But there is the second way: a very close both political and economic co – operation with the Eurounion. Well, and what would Great Britain be able to propose? firstly, the reorganization of the NATO’s troops into the Eurounion’s ones, liquidation of the American military bases in Europe; secondly, substituting dollars for “euros” in golden currency reserves of the European states.
But what way will Great Britain prefer? Time will show.
Well, you see I have proved my hypothesis. In my work I have come to the following conclusion unconsoling for Great Britain:
1. It does not run its own independent foreign policy, being the US’s puppet;
2. Its pro – American position antagonizes other European states;
3. The British government must change its foreign policy as quickly as it is possible.
The list of used literature.
1. Encyclopedia for Children “Avanta +”, volume # 12 “Russia”, p. 640 – 642.
2. Encyclopedia for Children “Avanta +”, volume # 1 “World History”, p. 610 – 613, 657 – 658.
3. Encyclopedia for Children “Avanta +”, volume # 13 “States, Peoples, Civilizations”, p. 129, 246, 272, 276, 367, 369.
4. “Politicians and Rulers”. T. Varlamova, p. 506.
5. “Russia: the 20-th century. Politics and Culture”. N. Starikov, p. 410.
6. “The Geographical Axis of History”. H. McKinder.
7. “The Politology”. M. Marchenko, p. 375.
This way I have put forward the following hypothesis: the political authority of Great Britain is nominal nowadays.
To prove it I have used the following methods of getting the material:
Ø Case Study
Ø Making Conclusions
Ø Making Comparisons and Analogies.