A Defence of the Values of Neo-Liberal Globalisation

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

“Hard-headed internationalism”:
A Defence of the Values of Neo-Liberal Globalisation

The Prime Minister is on a mission to underpin the values of “hard-headed internationalism” and convince the other big powers, particularly of Europe, as well as those sceptical in this country, of the necessity to pursue a course of backing soft-power with hard-power. On November 12, Gordon Brown delivered the annual speech at the Lord Mayor of London’s Banquet, at which it is the tradition for the Prime Minister to outline the government’s foreign policy. Some media commentators had suggested that Gordon Brown might use this opportunity to distance himself from the foreign policy associated with his predecessor but the Prime Minister’s speech was again characterised by a firm commitment to the reactionary Anglo-American alliance and worldwide intervention and aggression.

            Underpinning the entire speech was Gordon Brown assertion of the existence of what he referred to as the “timeless values”, in his words “our belief in the liberty of all, in security and justice for all, in economic opportunity and environmental protection shared by all”. According to successive governments it is the defence of these “British” or “universal values” that is at the heart of all government policy. As in the past Gordon Brown stressed that these “timeless values” must not only be defended at home but also promoted abroad. On this basis, the government gives itself the right to carry out the most reactionary and warmongering activities and to meddle throughout the world, all in the interest of the big monopolies.

            According to Brown’s logic such meddling and interference is even more necessary today because of the alleged proliferation of “failed states and rogue states”, the term coined by the Anglo-American alliance to refer to those states that refuse to accept their diktat and/or which are of strategic and economic significance for the big imperialist powers. But also because of the instability that is so evident in the world as a consequence of the contention between the existing big powers, a contention which also involves new emerging powers. Gordon Brown also takes account of the fact that in the modern world it is possible to “create a global society that empowers people”. Although the Prime Minster presents this is a future prospect that can merely be contemplated, it is clear that for millions of people worldwide it is a problem that is being actively taken up for solution and therefore requiring intervention by the government. Gordon Brown emphasises the modern interdependence of the world, inferring that the Anglo-American alliance and the other big powers must design appropriate new international machinery, “renew and strengthen our international rules, institutions and networks”, that is attempt to find ways to safeguard their interests and resolve their contradictions.

            Brown’s “hard-headed internationalism”, as he calls it, is nothing more than a defence of the Eurocentric values of the Anglo-American alliance, a demand that all must subscribe to these values or face the consequences of “hard-headed intervention”. Brown demands a strengthening of Britain’s alliances with the US and EU and within the reactionary NATO and anachronistic Commonwealth, as well as in the UN. Indeed Brown envisages Britain playing a central role in strengthening all these institutions to great a “global society” based on such values. At the same time, Brown used the speech to call for revamped international institutions, an enlargement of the G8 a “global Europe”, and in general for international institutions that are more interventionist in defence of the values of neo-liberal globalisation.

            Rather than the “humanitarian concern” of Blair, Brown speaks of “the responsibility to protect”, a phrase reminiscent of the imperialists of the past who spoke of the “white man’s burden” and Britain’s “dual mandate” to allegedly protect the people and resources of Africa as a justification for colonial rule. The modern justifications are based on the premise that the big powers should identify so-called “failing states” and give themselves the right to intervene. As Brown says, “we must now set in place the first internationally agreed procedures to prevent breakdowns of states and societies.” Naturally, Britain and the other big states would give themselves the right to define “breakdowns” and “failing states” and would not conclude that their own inability to provide for the needs of their citizens were grounds for the intervention in this country of some power external to Britain. Brown’s proposal would mean that there would be not just military invasion, under the auspices of the UN, but also machinery in place for more prolonged political and economic “reconstruction” and occupation.

            The Prime Minister’s actual foreign policy agenda could be seen by his continual commitment to the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and his pledge to continue to interfere in these country’s economic and political affairs. This agenda could also be seen in his renewed threats against Iran, and the demand that the UN and EU increase sanctions against that country. It was also clear from the Prime Minster’s speech that the government will continue to interfere in Palestine to deny the people of that country their national rights. In short, Brown’s “hard-headed internationalism” is a reaffirmation of the government’s commitment to defend the interests of the big monopolies and financial institutions throughout the world.

            The conclusion for the working class and people is that to pursue the goal of progress and justice, a complete break must be made with the dangerous and anachronistic logic and consciousness of the status quo and the rich and powerful that Brown and his ilk represent. This logic and programme is inadmissible and unconscionable for the working class and progressive forces, who must settle scores with it in the course of fighting for a programme which defends the sovereignty of nations and peoples and is completely antagonistic to the use of war to settle international affairs.