Is the UK’s self-winding foreign policy taking a nosedive in the 21st Century?

Brexit becoming paralyzed indicates for the country being steered towards danger due to the absolute challenges yet to come.    

Theresa May never envisioned for Britain to contest in the European Parliamentary elections, 2019 with it being around the corner. All political parties are fighting for it inevitably as a proxy quest for Brexit. The recent local elections have been expounded in the same imprudent way the decisions on Brexit results were interpreted. Yet it would be an extent to make-believe that for the first time in the history of Britain, the European Elections of UK are truly focused on Europe’s and Britain’s position in the contemporary world. The reality is extremely less gratifying. The elections can be comprehended with a holistic understanding of another occurrence in the state and particularly the Conservative party’s distress due to the significant deterioration of British influence as the referendum was a short-term highlight. Therefore the elections are dubious to be therapeutic and purgative. On a conflicting note, the vote of 2016 has hauled the Brits into an entrenched melodrama.

The case regarding Brexit is one that is inescapable. It is binding for leaders and political parties to engage in it. The more it persists, the further the country goes beyond any endeavor to make a thoughtful, far-sighted decision about the actualities that shape its contemporary presence. The argument concerning Brexit is so severe that we fail to perceive lucidly enough the self -injury Britain is inflicting upon itself, regardless of the temporary consequence of the clashes that presently preoccupy the activists’ of the parties. Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP who is also in favor of a soft Brexit was of the opinion that they have become dangerous in the sense; the European Union’s conventional partners are not willing to exert any burdens any longer stated by Charles Grant, who is a pro-European veteran. In past Britain was considered an “awkward but constructive ally” however presently the country seems steady, reasonable which seems quite bizarre to most of the viewers and there is no question of returning.

Whoever has not incurred any contact between any British or foreign diplomat can argue regarding the truth of that. As a result, of the 2016 decision, it has resultantly caused the whole world to perceive Britain to be frivolous. However, the 2016 decision is not the only element that is fueling these thoughts; the response of Britain is also partly to blame for it. There is no progress, the process is only worsening. In the U.K crisis all the probable next moves, a patched forgiving Brexit deal amongst both the parties the Conservatives and the Labour. A vigorous effort to oust Theresa May will perhaps worsen the situation to a greater extent. Until a post Brexit phase is not attained these problems will continue to persist. It was unanticipated that barely any crucial consideration has been given in current times to a more realistic sense, that if one exists; the pride of the treasured Conservatives – “One Global Britain”. When any of the alternatives are discussed rationally there is comparable void which includes the post-Brexit foreign policy of Jeremy Corbyn’s.

It becomes quite evident that Britain’s response is self-winding when parts of the Iran nuclear deal befalls or when the role of Huawei in the future in the national infrastructure of Britain reaches its climax. Britain’s stance on Iran persists to be stuck in a vacuum of ambiguity in-between the conflicting replies of its American and European allies. Whereas on Huawei, Britain is caught amongst its growing occupation together with China and the long-standing craving of reengaging in the Cold War.

Britain does not respond in either circumstance in corresponding to a comprehensive 21st-century evaluation of its own might and influence, values and interests. It usually shelters itself in an intellectual vacuum and habit of postwar. The outcome turns out to be the failure to comprehend what’s in its best interest as it is rather equipped poorly.

A month ago, Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director of the royal united services institute is of the opinion that Britain is devoted to strengthening the “Rules-Based International System”. We will catch this phrase appearing in most of Theresa Mays ministers and her own speeches, as well. This phrase has been given utmost importance as it cropped up 27 times alone in 2015’s Security and Strategic Defence review only. Recently, in a speech by Jeremy Hunt quoted the Rules-Based International System separately in broad contexts.

Chalmers is of the opinion that no Rules-Based International System exists in reality. However, there are no less than three separate overlying and imperfect systems, including international relations, financial links and liberally democratic values in diverse international. Most of these are agreements based on power rather than on rules. For “Global Britain” the RBIS is not a guide to achievement. A much more practical and realistic evaluation of resources, interests, and values of Britain.

The author, Kelton High works at Transparency International as an Assistant Project Coordinator.

Leave a comment

Filed under Brexit, Discussion, Europe, Pakistan Horizon, Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s