buruma164_SAUL LOEBAFP via Getty Images_trumpborisjohnson

特殊关系的复仇

Sep 7, 2020 Ian Buruma

纽约—75年前，美英两国如日中天。他们高举自由和民主的大旗打败了帝国主义日本和纳粹德国。诚然，他们的盟友——斯大林领导下的苏联——对这些美好的理想有着不同的想法，并在对德作战中出力最多，但世界上大部分地区的战后秩序还是由美英主导。

1941年温斯顿·丘吉尔（Winston Churchill）和富兰克林·罗斯福（Franklin D. Roosevelt）在纽芬兰沿海的一艘战舰上起草的《大西洋宪章》规定了由英美主导的战后秩序的基本原则。最终击败轴心国后，他们设想的是一个国际合作频繁、多边机构协调和人民独立自由的世界。虽然丘吉尔拒绝将最后一点扩大到英国的殖民地，但罗斯福认为，英美关系太重要了，不能为此争吵太多。

几十年来，尽管多次鲁莽发动战争，冷战中歇斯底里，并抱着机会主义心态支持一些非常不民主的盟友，英美仍然保持着自由民主和国际主义的典范形象。

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 9 Comments on this article

Mirek Fatyga Sep 9, 2020

you cannot ignore the economic dimension of this, as embodied by the Thatcher/Reagan revolution. It is not an accident that both of these countries have become the "sick men" of the western world at the same time.

The simple truth is that Karl Marx was mostly right in his diagnosis but completely wrong in his prescription. This is a common problem, it is much easier to see what is wrong, harder to figure out what to do, and even harder to make something happen in a cohesive way.

The fall of the Berlin Wall was portrayed as the great triumph of Capitalism over Communism. In reality, it was a triumph of Managed Capitalism over State Socialism. Put in another way, it was a triumph of Social Evolution over Social Revolution. Ironically, as this triumph was taking place, the "Anglo-Saxon" sphere was taking a hard right turn, back towards economic dogmatism, a kinder, gentler version of Bolshevik philosophy of radical social transformation.

When reality collides with dogmatism, the dogmatic revolutionaries face a choice: backpedal with some face saving measures, or double down. The typical way of doubling down is propaganda, combined with outright repression when propaganda begins to fail. In the US and in the UK, Conservative parties elected to double down and escape into the world of propaganda. Nothing was their fault, it was all immigrants, minorities, and the libtards. Johnson and Trump are the logical consequence of this, both demonstrated public liars who are not even pretending that they are bound by any rules of honestly dealing with the public by, even approximately, sticking to the facts.

For the second time in 100 years, the Anglo-Saxon economic dogmatism is bringing the Western World to the edge of an abyss. The material circumstances in this, second, round are somewhat different. As usual, they are better with some respects but worse with others.

Better, in a sense that the industrial civilization has become much more efficient, so it is possible to provide enough scraps to everyone, to prevent an onset of extreme hardship. There is no post-WW1 devastation and animosity to spawn something like WW2 with any degree of certainty. Unfortunately, this is where the better ends.

On the worse side of the ledger. Governments and Central banks have now become an integral part of the economic mess, trying to prop up the impossible to prop up with growing desperation. If these efforts collapse fiat currencies, some real chaos could ensue. I, frankly, have no clue what the world would be like then. Much larger world population ,aspiring to better life, is putting pressure on resources and the environment. This is a form of invisible economic barrier that frustrates people and can be exploited by political sociopaths. There are technological fixes to this barrier, but they take time and money. The final, and most worrisome factor, is military technology, particularly the nukes. No need to continue here.

Hold on to your hats.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Sep 9, 2020

Brexit was brewing since Maastricht. The very idea that EU-28 should become a federal state was the killer. However, EU-institutions were created as if this were still the goal. This resulted not only in obscenely expensive institutions, the so-called EU-parliament not alone but in particular, that are all predominantly dysfunctional. Whenever one of the numerous " presidents", of the institutions - all people were only incompentence and overpayment match - opens his or her mouth it becomes an insult to the common sense of millions. Britons opted out since they did not want to endure the insults any longer.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Sep 8, 2020

Ian Buruma says seventy-five years ago, the Unted States and the United Kingdom were hailed as victors of World War II, and beacon of the free world. They laid the foundation of the post-war global order, following a joint declaration released by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) and Prime Minister Winston Churchill on August 14, 1941 in Newfoundland. The Atlantic Charter provided a broad statement of American and British war aims.
While the US would remain neutral, the declaration would raise the morale of the British public and, most importantly, bind the UK closer to the US. While the Charter was not a binding treaty, it publicly affirmed the sense of solidarity between the US and UK against Axis aggression. It also laid out FDR’s Wilsonian-vision for the postwar world; one that would be characterised by “international cooperation, multilateral institutions, and the right of peoples to be independent and free.”
After they defeated Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany “in the name of freedom and democracy,” dsarmament, and collective security became important issues. The author says, “for many decades, despite a number of reckless wars, eruptions of Cold War hysteria, and opportunistic support for some very undemocratic allies, the UK and the US maintained their image as models of liberal democracy and internationalism.” The Charter ultimately did serve as an inspiration for colonial subjects throughout the Third World, from Algeria to Vietnam, as they fought for self-determination.
The US and the UK are allies of long-standing with shared values, history and language. The two have shed much blood and treasure together in defence of freedom. But both countries have also fallen out at times, most bitterly over the Suez Crisis in 1956 – France and the UK launched a joint attack against Egypt aimed at instituting a 'regime change' and deposing Gamal Abdel Nasser, the country's charismatic leader – and the Vietnam War in the 1960s. American schoolchildren are all reminded that it was the British who burned the White House to the ground in 1814.
In recent years this “special relationship” is entering a dangerous new phase when reckless rightwing populists have taken over their parties and governments. Since the UK and the US are two old democracies that used to serve as models of liberalism, now the entire world is living with the consequences of their incompetence and toxic politics. They stand “for everything FDR opposed,” and Churchill “never would have condoned.”
The author offers reasons for this development. Just like everywhere else, both countries have seen “increasing economic inequality, sclerotic institutions, complacent elites, animus against immigrants, and so on.” He suggested “the current troubles in both countries are linked to their greatest triumph in 1945. Having emerged from isolationism and defeated the Axis powers, the US might have grown a little high on its military power. The temptation to regard Churchill (always more popular in the US than Britain was) as a model of leadership has led many American presidents astray.”
Churchil is the “face of Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism and heroic stands for freedom that play to US leaders’ self-regard. George W. Bush was not the first presidential Churchill-worshipper who decided to embark on a misconceived war… in Iraq against Saddam Hussein, who was brutal, but not remotely as threatening as Hitler. Trump’s revival of ‘America First’ isolationism, his loathing for international institutions and US allies in the democratic world, are….partly the result of Bush’s disastrous war. Trump appealed to the kind of people – white, rural, often poorly educated, and deeply resentful of coastal elites – who were sent off to die in America’s overseas adventures.”
It also explains why Boris Johnson seeks to bolster the special relationship with the US following Brexit, while trying to carve out a more independent approach towards the country's foreign relations in the post-Brexit era. The UK has been at odds with the US over various issues, like Iran, Huawei, digital tax etc.
In general, Tory prime ministers and Republican presidents have always been more obsessed with maintaining this special relationship than their Labour and Democratic peers. “Harold Macmillan realized that the UK could not afford to stay out of the European Economic Community, the lure of standing shoulder to shoulder with the US, especially in faraway wars, was stronger than the desire to play a leading role in Europe.”
Labour prime minister, Tony Blair, was an exception. His eagerness to support George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq came to tarnish his legacy. He justified his move, saying the US was the “only one nation had stood by Britain in its hour of gravest peril in 1940.” No doubt he regrets this folly today.
The author points out that the “specter” of Neville Chamberlain had come back to haunt many prime ministers, because they did not want to go down in history as another appeaser, by striking a compromise with a modern day Hitler, and would rather emulate Churchill.
The November election in the US might change the dynamics of this “special relationship,” especially when Trump is being replaced by Biden. The British conservatives and nationalists know they might have a tough time dealing with Democrats, who are less imbued with toxic nostalgia.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Sep 8, 2020

As usual, Ian Buruma has done his homework well when he writes, “..... Although Churchill resisted extending this right to Britain’s colonial subjects, Roosevelt believed that the Anglo-American relationship was too important to quarrel about it too much...”.
This is all true. Churchill was a war-chief, but on the other hand , he was an imperiallist and racist to the core all his entire life. There are so many recorded examples when he served as a subaltern in India and Egypt in 19th century . His ordering of diversion of food supplies from state of Bengal to British Army in 1943 , caused famine in that state. Nearly a million people died. Such a ghastly criminal act.
- Michael Public Sep 9, 2020
  
  Funny how the winners write history, and then casually fail to mention the genocide of a million people. Here in South Africa, around the same time, the British put the women and children of the Boers into concentration camps and let them die to hunger and disease en masse - then burnt all farms to the ground to ensure a general famine ensued.
  - P. Kamath Sep 9, 2020
    
    Battle at LadySmith, right? Actually the credit goes to the British for inventing concentration camps. On the other hand, every human society displays two sides opposite to each other - noble/ ignoble, beautiful/ugly and kind/cruel! Remember institution of Appartheid !🤫!
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gunnar Eriksson Sep 8, 2020

The electoral system in UK and US has forced the neo-fascist to take over an existing party in order to gain real influence. In countries with proportional electoral systems, the Neo-Fascists have formed new parties and been able to influence the agenda without even being part of governments.
How this difference will unfold remains to be seen!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Sep 7, 2020

Hi Ian,

A very well laid-out essay and historically accurate. Thank you for that.

I think what question you're implying is along the lines of, 'What is the way forward for the US and the UK?'

The way forward for all nations especially the US and the UK is to realize that we are well out of the postwar era, and that we're out of the post-Cold War era, and that we're now coming out of the globalist era (which was at first wildly successful, and over time, has become less so) and that we all need to focus on creating OUR OWN (much better) reality or 'era'.

And that new reality can only be called the 'Interdependence Era' because that's the only thing that makes sense at this point without having to reinvent the wheel.

No longer can one country be completely independent. Those days are gone. Anyone pining for those days is still locked into 20th-century thinking and that thinking isn't going to do anything for yourself or your country.

Just as in nature, the world is constantly evolving. And we have evolved beyond world wars, beyond Cold Wars, beyond independence, and beyond globalism.

We need a replacement, and Interdependence is it -- for so many reasons.

What is Interdependence?

Bilateral treaties with every country no matter how tiny or seemingly insignificant.

1. Start at the top, sign a non-aggression treaty with that country that represents the highest trade and security benefits for your country, then work out a free trade agreement, then work out student, military, and social exchanges, and finally, work on ways to further clean energy and better governance in both countries.

2. Do the same with the next most important country. And then the next most important country, and so on.

3. Go through the entire list of some 200 countries and then review to see if any updates need to be made.

4. And do all of that -- not taking 200-years to do it -- but rather, race through the entire list (getting agreements at each stop) within 10-years.

It's not wrong to want the best for your own country, and once war and other hostilities are ruled-out, getting those trade and political agreements should become easy-peasy.

The problem for Globalism is that it's a worldwide free-for-all, unrestricted competition for resources and other goods. That can lead to confrontation.

The plus for Interdependence is that it's clearly a 'give-and-take' proposition, instead of a 'grab-all-you-can-for-as-long-as-you-can-get-away-with-it' proposition.

For example; There's more food produced in this world than we can eat. The problem is that up to 1/3rd of all food produced in the world is wasted. Which represents a systemic problem -- a systemic food distribution problem caused by insufficient politics.

As this was the case prior to the prewar era, and in the postwar era, in the Cold War era, in the post-Cold War era, and in the Globalist era, it means that the systemic food distribution problem is a political problem.

People need to eat, politicians are responsible for the wellbeing of their respective people. Simple as that, it's a political problem.

All those other eras did not rectify the problem, therefore, it falls to our generation to put these things right.

As I said, there's more than enough food (for one example out of hundreds I could've chosen) the problem is that the politicians aren't delivering on their promises to solve the problems of this generation, or any previous generation.

"Peace in Our Time" and "Peace and Prosperity" and "Peaceful Coexistence"...

Oh. Really? Where? Where is all that happening? Not on this planet!

Yet, much good work has been done by politicians on this planet, it's just that there's more to do. (Isn't there always!)

Politicians don't get to choose what issues cross their desk, their job is to address and solve the issues that do cross their desk while in office.

Whether you call it 'Interdependence', 'politics with a heart', 'Our Generation will Put it Right', or whatever else you choose to call it, new thinking MUST begin to solve actual problems that cross the desks of today's generation -- because many serious global issues just aren't being dealt with in any concrete way.

And by utilizing 'Interdependence' all countries should be able to get what they need at a reasonable cost.

Globalism doesn't need to be dismantled, it should be the foundation of a new and enhanced political instrument (Interdependence') designed to include every country on the planet and making political leaders RESPONSIBLE for solving the problems of this decade.

Thereby making ALL 200 heads of state responsible -- not only G7 leaders and not only G20 leaders -- for solving every problem on the planet.

At that point, politics will finally live up to its true and full destiny.

Right now, the US and the UK are perfectly poised to lead the way forward on the newest and best political paradigm yet, Interdependence!

Great to read you here at ProSyn, Ian!
Thank you, JBS
- Eric Einhorn Sep 8, 2020
  
  Some positive suggestions here, but the "non-aggression treaties with all" and peaceniki tone reminds me that we already have the Kellogg-Briand Pact (Pact of Paris) of 1928 that outlawed war. How has that worked out?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/jP9rktzzh

特殊关系的复仇

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

特殊关系的复仇

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification