A sort ofAfter the defeat, blame each other. The British lashed out at the Americans with their fingers and asked them to carry out a shameful collision from Kabul, which would make Western opponents more daring. Sir John Major yesterday called the withdrawal of Western troops a “strategicly very stupid” decision. Prime Minister Tony Blair, who sent British troops into Afghanistan 20 years ago, even called “emergency evacuation.”stupid“. The 10th is already Forced to deny Boris Johnson called the President of the United States “Drowsy Joe”, which is an insult to Donald Trump. Biden’s supporters counter-accuse the United Kingdom and other European countries of expecting the United States to continue to invest blood and wealth in Afghanistan when most NATO members have long abandoned their commitments.
In Whitehall, an ugly tripartite accusation game was launched between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Interior to discuss why the government did not foresee the rapid fall of Kabul or was not ready in time to help the disadvantaged by the British. Obligation. If they devote as much energy as possible to planning evacuation, as much as they spend blaming each other, we will be in a better position. There will be more accusations when the House of Commons returns tomorrow. However, if there is to be anything useful to learn from this disaster, what this country needs is not shirk responsibility among politicians who are eager to save their careers. What is needed is to calmly reassess where this puts Britain in a dangerous and unpredictable world.
This humiliating incident broke the core assumption of elite thinking about foreign policy.This is very obvious when Policy Exchange Think Tank A speech group was convened, and they are known for their seniority and anxiety about the future. Former Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser Sir Mark Seidwell is convinced that the return of Taliban rule will have an “inspiring” impact on the jihadists, thereby contributing to global terrorism. Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, who served in Afghanistan and chaired the Special Committee on Foreign Affairs, fears that we are already close to the fierce conflict between the United States and China because Beijing will interpret the failure of the West as encouraging them to show themselves more actively. the power of. I am also shocked by George Robertson’s contribution, who served as the Secretary of Defense during the first term of the New Labor Party and as the General Secretary of NATO during the 9/11 events. He has always firmly supported the labor Atlanticist tradition established by Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin after World War II. I heard people like Lord Robertson who strongly support alliances with the United States say that Britain and other Europeans must do more for themselves to “protect the safety of our people” because “we can no longer rely on the U.S. umbrella to be there. This Shocking. Anytime, under any circumstances.”
For a Brexit government that sells their companies and promises that the UK will be liberated to create a new global identity, this is also — or of course it should be — a moment of disillusionment. When it comes to the world stage, the Brexit prospectus has three core pillars. One is that by reaching an independent trade agreement, Britain’s foreign policy can focus more on serving the country’s economic interests. Some have been negotiated, although they are usually just cut and paste of agreements that the United Kingdom has reached as a member of the European Union. As the dazzling prize of Brexit, the possibility of reaching an agreement with the United States now seems slim. At the same time, people are increasingly aware that a foreign policy that follows money can be a reckless short-sightedness. Not long ago, veterans of the Conservative Party were eloquently talking about the “golden age” of enriching economic relations with China. They are now occupied by the geostrategic threats to Western values and interests posed by the world’s most powerful one-party state.
Brexiters’ second hypothesis is that Britain has the diplomatic ability to make solo flight successful.There is no evidence to support the arguments drawn from the dismal performance AfghanistanLast week, the foreign minister complained in front of members of Congress, confirming that he had not called his counterparts in Afghanistan or Pakistan in the six months before the chaos exited.
When asked how the Brexit Britain will exert its global influence, the government often argues that it will use its “convening power”. Membership in other international organizations will enable the United Kingdom to achieve the desired results for itself, while guiding other countries to solve global challenges. We entered 10th place this year, claiming that the chairmanship of the G7 will prove the continued relevance of the UK on the world stage.However, no obvious additional products came out G7 summit In June. After the U.S. President savagely refused to negotiate with the United Kingdom on Afghanistan, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Biden’s amiable performance on the beach in Cornwall looked even more false. After the fall of Kabul, the Prime Minister called an emergency online meeting of the G7, but apparently failed to persuade Mr. Biden to change direction.
The next test of the legendary “convening power” is COP26 summit In Glasgow in November. Many people worry that this important gathering will fail unless the richer countries can be persuaded to fulfill their promise to help the poorer countries cope with the climate crisis. Successfully exerting “convening power” requires hard work and high ability, as well as the ability to build fruitful relationships with global counterparts and the ability to build consensus. These are not the qualities of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raab, or anyone else among the Brexitists.
Their third hypothesis is to maintain a lasting close relationship with Washington. As long as it fights side by side with the United States, Britain will never fight alone. For those who support the concept of the “Anglo circle”, most of the significance of Brexit is to embrace the transatlantic more closely. This does not recognize that American public opinion is tired of entanglements with foreign countries and is increasingly dissatisfied with sending troops and spending taxes to protect others. When Trump lashed out at free-riding allies, he rudely expressed the feelings of many American voters and politicians.
It might be an exaggeration to say that we are entering a period similar to the 1920s, when the United States retreated to the huge moats provided by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. When the United States is in its own interests, it will remain a global player. But it’s hard not to conclude that we have witnessed a worldwide repositioning of Washington’s priorities, which could very marginalize the UK. After Barack Obama turned to Asia, Trump has ramped up through international norms and has now been replaced by Joe Biden’s American first version.
This is not like a flash in the pan. It looks like an inflection point. Secretary of Defense Ben Wallace is more deliberate on this point than most of his cabinet colleagues.he debate “Taking the United States for granted” is a mistake and implies that Britain should work on other alliances and mentions that France is a partner in supporting African countries besieged by extremists.Mr. Tugendhat agree Britain must get rid of its dependence on a single ally: “Like the Suez Canal defeat, the Afghan crisis will completely change our foreign policy… Our choice cannot be entirely determined by the White House.”
At least some Conservative parties are doing some thinking.This coincides with a renewed debate on the mainland Europe Reduce dependence on the United States. Britain’s participation will greatly strengthen Europe’s joint efforts to protect the security of our continent. If Britain does not want to rely on the United States so much, the obvious place to find other friends is the free democracies near us.
It makes sense to build mutually beneficial partnerships in defense and foreign policy, but you have already identified obstacles.This requires respect and trust, not a relationship that has been poisoned for many years Boris Johnson And other senior Conservative parties have described Europe as the country’s deadliest enemy, and the terms of exiting the European Union have been deteriorating. One day, Britain will have a government that recognizes that it is in Britain’s national interest to rebuild the bridges burned down by Brexit with neighboring countries, but it must first replace the prime minister.
