Tweet
British and European Logic
Igor Muradyan
13:47 26/01/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28733
The ongoing processes and developments in Europe seem to have an
indirect link to the political future of the countries of the South
Caucasus, especially that the process of integration is extremely
slow. However, Europe is related to this region far not only by the
`integration' process but also mostly regional games. Therefore, the
region should follow the politics of leading and other European states
more attentively and closely.
The world of analytics is divided to European (more exactly,
Franco-German) and Anglo-Saxon analytical `schools' and thoughts. As I
was looking into the problems of setup of European armed forces in the
late 1990s, I came to know the ways of political projection of British
and French researchers.
The British prefer working with actual political resources, the French
keep in mind that a preliminary solution of institutional issues will
predetermine the rest. In this regard, the British view the European
Union as a toolkit, while the French consider it Europe's historical
mission.
The UK is considering leaving the EU, and if the British think about
doing something, they do it, and it is impossible to apply European
logic to London way of thinking. In fact, the Americans immediately
brought into the political discussion of this issue all the possible
arguments, such as leaving the EU will weaken the UK and deprive it of
such an important lever as influence on Europe. Thus the Americans
proved again that European thinking prevails in them not due to the
influence of the Franco-German and Celtic ethnic influence on the U.S.
policy but the establishment of the United States as an antipode and
ontological rival of the British oligarchic-aristocratic monarchy (to
put it in more figurative terms, the French templar model opposed to
the Venetian one).
Though the stereotypes are deeply rooted in the history of existence
of the EU as a projection of De Gaul-Adenauer and Mitterrand-Kohl
models, unification of Germany has significantly modified the
arrangement of forces in Europe, and the French were attracted by the
British, i.e. the memories of the classics of Antanta. Hence, the U.S.
and France have a similar opinion on the stay of the UK in Europe
though their motives are different. The United States pursues
mega-goals of control on Europe which would be difficult to implement
without the U.K. France is interested in such goals as maintenance of
the balance of forces in Europe and activation of the foreign policy
of leading European powers.
But how can the British policy be motivated, and what is the logic of
London in this case?
Even though some principles and approaches may be effective and
justified, the loss of actual goals renders most traditional methods
in politics meaningless. The UK has lost its interest in global,
European and regional politics due to its economic interests. It
remains a leading military and economic power, has important
geopolitical presence in a number of regions, is one of the pillars of
NATO and Transatlantic politics, is a world financial center.
At the same time, the UK has lost the status of an industrial power
and its economic interests are determined by raw material and energy
resources rather than hi-tech. The problems of Europe are too
burdensome and unnecessary for the British.
They say the British never lose. It may true but when a country is
already not trying to enter into foreign political games, there will
be nothing to lose. The UK has been unable to prevent rapprochement of
Germany and Russia (first of all, breakdown of German-Russian
relations on energy supply), establishment of the German-Central
European economic area and German economic expansion to traditionally
areas of British influence.
The UK and France have been unable to involve Germany in a more active
regional policy. France is rushing forward in foreign political and
military issues, leading the Franco-British military alliance (trying
not to demonstrate this).
The UK did not take part in the developments in the Mediterranean and
the Near East, now already in Africa. The games using Turkey's
ambitions were not successful either, and even London has growing
doubts on the intensification of integration of Turkey with the EU. At
the same time, the UK relies on its centennial experience in world
markets and successfully cooperates with sources of raw materials and
oil in all the regions, including Russia, the Caspian, Africa, Latin
America and the Near East, of course.
London is currently concerned about two directions of foreign economic
activities - raw material resources and export of weapons. It is
worried about absence of hindrances. The UK is losing interest in
Europe, it is not going to perform functions in Europe which are in
line with the U.S. interests rather than its own ones, and leaving the
EU will be quite in line with the British concept.
In this regard, debritainization of the EU meaning more limited
relations and interests of London in the EU will, one way or another,
lead to the diminishing role of Turkey and its satellite Azerbaijan in
Europe. It is possible that it will lead to modification of
configuration of energy flow to the West.
From: Baghdasarian
Igor Muradyan
13:47 26/01/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28733
The ongoing processes and developments in Europe seem to have an
indirect link to the political future of the countries of the South
Caucasus, especially that the process of integration is extremely
slow. However, Europe is related to this region far not only by the
`integration' process but also mostly regional games. Therefore, the
region should follow the politics of leading and other European states
more attentively and closely.
The world of analytics is divided to European (more exactly,
Franco-German) and Anglo-Saxon analytical `schools' and thoughts. As I
was looking into the problems of setup of European armed forces in the
late 1990s, I came to know the ways of political projection of British
and French researchers.
The British prefer working with actual political resources, the French
keep in mind that a preliminary solution of institutional issues will
predetermine the rest. In this regard, the British view the European
Union as a toolkit, while the French consider it Europe's historical
mission.
The UK is considering leaving the EU, and if the British think about
doing something, they do it, and it is impossible to apply European
logic to London way of thinking. In fact, the Americans immediately
brought into the political discussion of this issue all the possible
arguments, such as leaving the EU will weaken the UK and deprive it of
such an important lever as influence on Europe. Thus the Americans
proved again that European thinking prevails in them not due to the
influence of the Franco-German and Celtic ethnic influence on the U.S.
policy but the establishment of the United States as an antipode and
ontological rival of the British oligarchic-aristocratic monarchy (to
put it in more figurative terms, the French templar model opposed to
the Venetian one).
Though the stereotypes are deeply rooted in the history of existence
of the EU as a projection of De Gaul-Adenauer and Mitterrand-Kohl
models, unification of Germany has significantly modified the
arrangement of forces in Europe, and the French were attracted by the
British, i.e. the memories of the classics of Antanta. Hence, the U.S.
and France have a similar opinion on the stay of the UK in Europe
though their motives are different. The United States pursues
mega-goals of control on Europe which would be difficult to implement
without the U.K. France is interested in such goals as maintenance of
the balance of forces in Europe and activation of the foreign policy
of leading European powers.
But how can the British policy be motivated, and what is the logic of
London in this case?
Even though some principles and approaches may be effective and
justified, the loss of actual goals renders most traditional methods
in politics meaningless. The UK has lost its interest in global,
European and regional politics due to its economic interests. It
remains a leading military and economic power, has important
geopolitical presence in a number of regions, is one of the pillars of
NATO and Transatlantic politics, is a world financial center.
At the same time, the UK has lost the status of an industrial power
and its economic interests are determined by raw material and energy
resources rather than hi-tech. The problems of Europe are too
burdensome and unnecessary for the British.
They say the British never lose. It may true but when a country is
already not trying to enter into foreign political games, there will
be nothing to lose. The UK has been unable to prevent rapprochement of
Germany and Russia (first of all, breakdown of German-Russian
relations on energy supply), establishment of the German-Central
European economic area and German economic expansion to traditionally
areas of British influence.
The UK and France have been unable to involve Germany in a more active
regional policy. France is rushing forward in foreign political and
military issues, leading the Franco-British military alliance (trying
not to demonstrate this).
The UK did not take part in the developments in the Mediterranean and
the Near East, now already in Africa. The games using Turkey's
ambitions were not successful either, and even London has growing
doubts on the intensification of integration of Turkey with the EU. At
the same time, the UK relies on its centennial experience in world
markets and successfully cooperates with sources of raw materials and
oil in all the regions, including Russia, the Caspian, Africa, Latin
America and the Near East, of course.
London is currently concerned about two directions of foreign economic
activities - raw material resources and export of weapons. It is
worried about absence of hindrances. The UK is losing interest in
Europe, it is not going to perform functions in Europe which are in
line with the U.S. interests rather than its own ones, and leaving the
EU will be quite in line with the British concept.
In this regard, debritainization of the EU meaning more limited
relations and interests of London in the EU will, one way or another,
lead to the diminishing role of Turkey and its satellite Azerbaijan in
Europe. It is possible that it will lead to modification of
configuration of energy flow to the West.
From: Baghdasarian