Bruce Anderson: The world is in an alarming state of flux – and there is a limit to what Britain can do about it
When Dmitri Medvedev was elected, Gordon Brown talked as if he was putting him on probation
Monday, 12 May 2008
We are living in a dangerous world, and that will remain true for the indefinite future. Yet to a surprising extent, political debate in this country fails to reflect this. In consequence, our efforts to secure our own future are doubly impeded. We underestimate the urgency of the need to take crucial steps to improve our long-term prospects. We overestimate our influence on global problems.
Despite years of agonising, we have proved wholly incapable of bringing relief to either Zimbabwe or Darfur. Yet some commentators and politicians talk as if the Russian and Chinese authorities were trembling at the thought of British moral censure. When Mr Medvedev was elected, Gordon Brown talked as if he was putting the new Russian leader on probation. The old joke about the Skibbereen Eagle having its eye on the Kaiser has long since grown green mould. Yet Gordon Brown's ability to overawe Mr Medvedev is hardly greater than the eagle's power over the Kaiser.
World events have rarely been more interesting: never more unpredictable. What will Russian and China be like in 20 years time? We can only speculate. India and Africa are slightly less uncertain. Out of Africa, there will always be something bad. In an era of raw material shortages, Africans ought to prosper but misgovernment will ensure that most of them fail to do so. From the West's point of view, apart from the helpless frustration of observing avoidable humanitarian crises, there is a danger that failed states will turn into terrorist states.
India will continue to wear its chaos on its sleeve. It will make remarkable progress, yet much rural poverty will remain intractible. Every generalisation about India will remain true, as will the opposite. Yet despite the country's problems, it will more or less work.
Russia has the advantage of a formal if imperfect democratic system plus a post-Soviet civil society. This should mean that high commodity prices lead to improved infrastructure and the diffusion of prosperity. It is easy to be cautiously optimistic about Russia's prospects.
China is more complex. Over the millennia, the Chinese have mastered every art, except politics. The current regime lacks legitimacy. The rulers are afraid of the ruled. At some stage, this will have to change. Will there be a careful transition guided by a statesman of genius so that the inevitable turbulence never breaks out of control? Or will there be breakdown, with hideous consequences? There are no guarantees.
Whatever the outcome, China will be a difficult global partner. The Chinese believe that history – abetted by the West – was brutal to them for 150 years. They are determined to make up for that. They will use their economic power to compete for raw materials thus forcing up world prices. They will project diplomatic and military power.
China is developing a blue-water navy. In foreign ports, warships are a splendid setting for cocktail parties. One suspects that this will not be their only role. How long before the Chinese acquire base facilities in Africa? If – which is, fortunately, almost inconceivable – the Malaysian government were to persecute its Chinese minority, how long would it take before Chinese warships appeared in Malay waters: 48 hours?
Taiwan apart, the West has no current territorial dispute with the Chinese, and it would be absurd of us to create a conflict by exposing the Tibetan cause, which we are powerless to assist. In 1956, some Hungarians joined the uprising because they thought that the West would come to their rescue. The West had to stand idly by while those noble patriots were martyred. After the first Gulf War, the Marsh Arabs rose in revolt against Saddam in the hope that we would protect them. More culpably than in Hungary, we did nothing and the fragile eco-system which sustains the Marsh Arabs' ancient way of life was almost destroyed.
Another ancient way of life is also under threat, in Tibet. But we are at least as powerless to help the Tibetans as we were in Hungary. Some people have been talking and writing as if we could use the Olympics as leverage on the Chinese authorities. In reality, the criticisms of China have mobilised popular support behind the Beijing government, which feels thoroughly irritated and therefore even less likely to make concessions. It would be useful to obtain Chinese co-operation on a range of issues, especially in Africa. But the sentimental mishandling of Tibet will do nothing to achieve this and a lot to obstruct it. For many years, we British have punched above our weight in international affairs and long may we continue to do so. But there has to be realism.
The same is true in British domestic politics. It has long been apparent that the UK has unmet needs, which could cause grave social and economic difficulties in the decades to come. The first is energy; the second, education.
For many years, almost every realistic analyst has known that Britain's future energy requirements could only be met if there were a substantial increase in nuclear capacity. Yet nothing has been done. Greenpeace et al have been allowed to inhibit the debate and prevent action, even though the logic of the eco-extremists' position is that mankind should live in long houses, on roots and berries. Every year in which we procrastinate is a year not far off in the future when our economy could be crippled by energy prices and energy shortages. Again, we need a rapid outbreak of realism.
This is also the case in education, where there have been some horrifying developments in recent years, including the virtual eradication of the hard sciences from large sections of the state system. In technology and science, British schoolchildren are at the bottom of almost every European league, and we do not only have to worry about Europe. In India and China, tens of millions of youngsters whose families have known hunger in recent decades, are now equally hungry, for education to lift them out of poverty. If we do not emulate them, they will drive us into poverty. The day could come when there will be businesses in Bangalore who employ a cheap call centre in Birmingham.
One nation in which there is little educational failure is currently celebrating its 60th birthday. Israel has remarkable achievements to its credit. It has made the desert bloom. It has created a vibrant democracy in an inhospitable region. It has also become a world leader in high tech industries.
If only it could share some of those benefits with its neighbours. Palestine is still the world's sore tooth. It is possible to admire everything which the Israelis have achieved and yet to go in fear of the consequences of their political blindness.
Israel is a country which embodies the paradoxes of the human condition. Great achievements, greater threats; great hopes, recurrent fears. A refuge and a glory for a people who barely escaped from the Holocaust; an enduring threat to peace in the Middle East, and the wider world. Britain is not the only country which has problems.




Excuse me but Britain has done quite enough thank you very much to put the world into a state of flux. For instance we needed the Iraq war like we needed another hole in our collective head. Blair and therefore the U.K. was very much responsible for that and ensuing debacles. You may have got rid of Blair but you still have your major part in the destruction of Iraq and consequent instability in the Middle East to pay for. And pay for it you shall! Please don't think for one second that your complicity in death and disorder is not known and marked for reprisal. You are dealing with the essence of blowback and while you deserve everything you get, unfortunately it's usually the poor innocent parties that have to pay for the stupid wickedness of fools like Blair and his equally offensive wife. You make me sick!
Posted by Archie1954 | 13.05.08, 04:21 GMT
This article brings to light the symptoms of an increasingly complex world.
How long do we have to wait before new meaning is made of this apparant chaos, and we choose to engage in a meaningful conversation about the deeper dynamics of these issues.
I am ready, willing and able to engage such a conversation.
Posted by Chrstopher Cooke | 12.05.08, 23:53 GMT
There has been frequent articles about 'The UKs ' need for Nuclear
Power Stations. Indeed recently France and German companies
have been eyeing up British Energy; Trouble is Hunterston one
of the mentioned Nuclear Power stations will not be allowed by the
SNP government of Scotland to be renewed. Scottish people do not
want Nuclear Power Stations. They are fragile beasts., and of
course the waste problem has not been settled and never likely to be. Scotland has sufficient Power for its own needs and we have no
intention of supplying Englands Nuclear Power needs.
Hydro, wind power and possibly clean coal Power stations is our
future.
Posted by Jim | 12.05.08, 22:53 GMT
As someone who knows a little of how the sub-continent works, the central splint of the UK Government and Business Leadership is that it doesn't really understand that the majority of the population will need to be subsidized. Instead, the poor are being made to subsidize the leaders. It may be against the grain of the democratic basis of western capitalism (yawn), but people are rarely allowed to be sufficiently accepting of structural expenditure if,or when they are high-yield seeking owners, or conversely, if their rent on resources is proportionately high.
Furthermore, personally, I don't feel that the UK actually has the quality of moral character anymore that produces censure abroad. But i do think that it used to and that it was an influential expression of State policy. Even though, currently, state programs to care for the population are fairly admirable.
Posted by K.Niqh | 12.05.08, 21:39 GMT
I found your comment of needing a rapid outbreack of realism laughable as all the cheerleaders of mass immigration that it is perfectly clear we will have millions of houses unsustainable for gas,electric, or water and millions of people we will be unable to feed. Its criminal.
Posted by robert | 12.05.08, 20:57 GMT
To surmount the huge challenges the UK faces in the coming years, it has to accept that we can no longer influence world politics as a single entity, and have not been able to for 60 years. We have to have closer ties with Europe, the US and China - it is possible to be intimate with all three.
We can no longer go on living the easy, comfortable suburbian lifestyle unless we have a highly skilled workforce that can outcompete any other European nation and at least stand a chance of fighting the highly motivated Chinese and Indian recently "liberated" workforce.
Furthermore, the lack of political will to embark on projects such as the Severn Barrage is staggering - we could supply our own energy requirements permanently, and, if we are feeling extremely ambitious (for once) we can actually supply energy to the continent and take on nationalised monoliths like Gazprom and challenge Russian energy supremacy.
It is just a shame that our leaders lack the will to follow this through.
Posted by Charlie | 12.05.08, 19:57 GMT
The Skibbereen Eagle had its eye on the Czar, not the Kaiser!
Posted by Sidney Smythness | 12.05.08, 18:03 GMT
What precisely are we supposed to be 'doing' something about in Tibet? Westerners are astoundingly ignorant on this issue. I suspect that Tibet is used to alleviate white man's guilt over the many places we colonised. The fact is that the Dalai Lama is NOT a fluffy Buddhist wiseman, but in reality is a sinister cultist and manipulator who has taken the west for complete mugs. Since the Chinese reclaimed Tibet, a historic part of their land, they have dramatically improved the standard of living, and as for Tibetan culture - when the monks were in power, very few Tibetans could read or write at all. Now the Tibetan language is compulsory in all schools in the region, even for Han Chinese.
Posted by Jane Martina | 12.05.08, 14:56 GMT
Some realistic comments here. One thing that struck me on returning from Japan, where I lived for 12 years or so, was that policy and news discussion in UK is always discussed in terms of the subjunctive. There is a constant looking forward to how things should be. I think maybe some other countries are happier to deal with things as they actually are-unpleasant though that may be. This emphasis on what should be is perhaps to do with the Cartesian triumph of the mind over the body, where UK intelligentsia feel that having the good ideas is enough in itself and somehow by having these great ideas, or these ideas winning through, the fabric of reality will somehow change. But the reality always lags behind the soaring ideas. There are so many examples of this in our every day lives: from the banning of mobile phones while driving (everyone still does it) to the fiasco at Terminal 5. Education and energy are two others. The idea of the comprehensive school is fantastic-but the reality? The idea of green energy is fantastic-but the reality?
Posted by Neil | 12.05.08, 10:02 GMT
When our hypocritical politicians and media think it's perfectly ok to ignore someone who was democratically elected by (at least) 130,000 people in London to represent them, I don't think we are in a position anymore to lecture anyone about anything.
At least Russia and China look after the interests of their own people first and foremost, and make no apologies about it, unlike the "common purpose" traitors in Westminster and the media.
We're an insignificant little country now, that needs to downsize fast back to a stable and homogenous society if we are to survive. And if that means encouraging certain "communities" to leave, do it while we still have the majority vote and can avoid serious conflict. Leave it for another generation and all will be lost.
Posted by John | 12.05.08, 09:37 GMT