Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Britain and the US: A Partnership for Global Instability and War

Come and Participate in the London Political Forum -No War on Iraq!

Palestine - A meeting for peace and justice, an end to the occupation, and finding common ground

On October 15, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, delivered a key not speech to the Chicago Council for Foreign Relations entitled: "The UK and the United States: A Partnership for Stability and Prosperity".

Jack Straw used his speech to set out the British government’s views on several issues including the future role of NATO, the role of force in international affairs, as well the "special relationship" between Britain and the US and the need for "multilateralism in international affairs".

He began his speech by reference to what he called the "three great threats to international security: global terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and state failure". According to Jack Straw, such threats come from those who oppose "universal values" – by which he clearly meant the Eurocentric values of Anglo-American imperialism, that can be summed up as support for neo-liberal globalisation, the multi-party political system and the self-serving definition of "human rights" which serves this economic and political system – the domination of the big powers in world affairs. In order to safeguard these values and deal with those that threaten them, Jack Straw argued that Britain and the US "have a common interest in upholding and reforming the multilateral system, which we build, and the great international post-war institutions – the United Nations, NATO and the European Communities".

Thus Jack Straw made a plea for the US to remain fully committed to a multilateral approach to international problems, that is, an approach that does not exclude Britain and Europe, as he argued it had done since the signing of the Atlantic Charter in 1941. For Jack Straw "the partnership between the United States and Europe has been the fulcrum of global order", vindicated by "the fall of the Wall" and the end of the bi-polar division of the world. For Jack Straw and the British government, the US must continue to play the reactionary role it has played during the last 60 years, not least because the "international architecture" erected in 1945 may not be sufficient to meet modern "challenges". As Jack Straw explained, "tackling these challenges may ultimately mean the use of force". The need to effect "regime change’ in Iraq, to manipulate the UN Security Council, to advance the economic and geo-political interests of Anglo-US imperialism throughout the world under the banner of combating "global terrorism" or tackling and rebuilding "failed states"– all this requires "the potential use of force".

The "multilateralism" that Jack Straw and the British government favour is "a vigorous transatlantic Alliance with NATO at its centre", a NATO that plans to strengthen itself by the admission of new members from southern and eastern Europe at next month’s Prague Summit. But Straw was also mindful of the criticism that it is the US military that dominates NATO. He was therefore quick to argue not only that Europe can make other non-military contributions to the "transatlantic alliance" but also that European countries should follow the lead of Britain and France and spend a larger proportion of GDP on "defence spending". At the same time, Jack Straw made it clear that the government still supports a greater military role for the EU in international affairs, although, he hastened to add, Europe "cannot make a real difference without regular, close and systematic co-operation with the US in NATO". He concluded by saying that it remained as true today as during the Cold War "that the credibility of our foreign policy depended on military capacity".

Thus for Jack Straw and the British government the use of force remains the means by which they intend to intervene throughout the world, justifying their warmongering on the basis of defending "universal values", preventing "state failure", combating "global terrorism", and so on and so forth. The British government still remains committed to "making Britain great again" both through strengthening the independent military capacity of the EU and by strengthening the transatlantic alliance with the US. In its drive to safeguard and extend the global interests of the big monopolies, it is determined to hang onto the coattails of US imperialism. Far from being a partnership of "stability and prosperity" such a partnership will create greater instability in the world and bring ever nearer the danger of a war of catastrophic and global proportions.

No War on Iraq!
Reject the Use of Force!
Build the Movement to End the Threat of War!

The governments of Britain and the US are stepping up their attempts to unleash an unjust war against Iraq, while at the same time are encouraging the Israeli Zionists to carry out genocide against the heroic Palestinian people. Anglo-American imperialism besides coveting the oil resources of the Middle East and Central Asia, is seeking to dominate these regions for strategic and geo-political reasons. The British and US governments are declaring that 'might is right', that they are the only arbiters of international affairs, with the right to carry out assassinations, 'regime change' and ride roughshod over all the international laws and norms of conduct that have been established since the Second World War. According to their logic, the UN itself is a body that can be threatened and cajoled, that is only required to rubber stamp their warmongering actions, and which can just as easily be ignored or dispensed with altogether.

But in the face of the warmongering of the big powers the peoples of the world are demanding to have their say. In the last few weeks millions of people from New York to Baghdad have demonstrated their opposition to the danger of war posed by Anglo-American imperialism and shown their support for the national liberation struggle of the Palestinian people. In London, 400,000 people of all nationalities, one of the biggest demonstrations ever to have taken place in Europe, poured onto the streets to demand: Don't Attack Iraq! Freedom for Palestine!

But how can this massive demonstration of opposition to war be developed into a movement that prevents war against Iraq, and also removes the threat of war in the future? How can the people decide the course our country takes in this dangerous situation and empower ourselves to determine its future foreign policy? All those concerned to discuss the answers to these questions are warmly welcomed to come and participate in the discussions at the London Political Forum.