One of the things passed over in the coverage of the six soldiers killedby an IED in Afghanistan this week is maybe that they will be among the last to die for a particular idea, namely Atlanticism.
A joint committee of the House of Commons and House of Lords on March 8 called on the British government to “reflect deeply on the long-term implications of the geographical and functional shifts in U.S. policy now taking place.” The comments were contained in a report on Britain’s national security strategy.
With British Prime Minister David Cameron due in Washington March 13-14 for talks with Obama on the upcoming NATO summit, developments in Afghanistan and other issues, the question of the future shape of the relationship will not be far from the surface.
The committee’s remarks follow the January publication by the U.S. government of a foreign policy shift that envisioned its economic and security focus moving away from Europe toward the Asia-Pacific region.
The British report said the U.S. policy shift raises “fundamental questions if our pre-eminent defense and security relationship is with an ally who has interests which are increasingly divergent from our own.”
So what are 'our interests' these days? The special relationship with India doesn't seem to be working out so well since the IAF decided to buy French jets. A fundamental tilt towards Asia also tends to undermine the idea of 'the West' as a coherent entity, and with that the whole rationale of respectable foreign policy thinking. What's going to replace it?
To be a replacement for Atlanticism, a policy would have to involve going to war with partner x by our side on an occasional basis, and where the point of such war is hard to figure out. Keeping the prices of commodities low, scaring debtor countries away from default (as David Graeber is said to claim), keeping the voters back home well and truly hippy punched (as David Graeber also claims) have been put forward as explanations.
Posted by: Charlie W | March 11, 2012 at 05:51 PM