Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Sunday, 6 May 2007

Declaration of Interdependence

A second letter from America to our British friends.
by Gene Poteat and William Anderson

MORE THAN TWO CENTURIES AGO we Americans thought it necessary to send you, our British cousins, a declaration which brought about a permanent separation of our political systems. Yet we retained a reverence for those freedoms which have always characterized our heritage. In a spirit of fraternal fellowship, and with equal urgency, we now write a second time.

First, we recognize that the last century has been one of critical challenges and hazards in which, together, we have triumphed in the face of mortal dangers. That partnership, then vital for victory, is now in jeopardy. Our military and economic cooperation are well known. Less fully appreciated, yet of equal importance, has been our close alliance in matters of intelligence, technology, and national security.

For example, we greatly appreciated your sending us the Zimmerman telegram, which proposed a German-Mexican alliance, just before World War I. We know you appreciated our response. This unprecedented sharing of the most sensitive intelligence continued throughout World War II and the Cold War, with the inevitable result--victory. This sharing of intelligence still continues, even expanding to include participation in and a degree of control of America's most sophisticated intelligence collection systems. Further, the sharing of nuclear weapons, submarine ballistic missile technology, and stealth aircraft makes a clear statement to our adversaries, as well as the rest of the world.

We are also aware that this close fraternal tie has not been without occasional bouts of dyspepsia for you. Your perspective at times has been that our manners

are coarse, our politics arcane, and our assistance less than timely. And in candor, your criticisms sometimes have merit. More than that, we are aware that your elite establishment and media thoroughly detest us. They seem eager to make common cause with those of similar perspective across the Channel, so as to exclude us from Europe and from the special relationship that we have enjoyed with you for almost a century.

We, on the other hand, forbear to embrace attitudes of antipathy toward you. We rather like you British, actually. True, we see you as a bit on the stuffy side, but on the whole we respect your love of freedom, your prudence, and your splendid use of our sometimes common language.

But now comes a message from you that the British future will no longer be tied to America and the English speaking nations. Now not only your transnational elite, but your entire citizenry appear prepared to scuttle the special relationship that has served us all so well, we thought. Opinion polls indicate that the British public believes that America is the main focus of evil and danger in the modern world, and that close integration with the European Union is the preferred measure for future alliance building.

It might be tempting to assume that you can have it all--to embrace the European Union, even with its regulatory baggage and democratic deficit, while retaining such ties with America and the Anglosphere as would enhance British economic and military security. With deepest regret, we suggest that this will not happen.

The European Union has its own perspective on international affairs and the disciplines which support them. Its position may fairly be summarized by the assumption that the world is no longer a very dangerous place. Or that it would not be were it not for irresponsible Americans. Any international disputes should be manageable, they believe, by skilled diplomacy and the application of international law as developed by the United Nations and other supranational institutions. If only the Americans would abandon their propensity to act unilaterally, in ignorance of the received wisdom of the world community, best expressed by the view from Brussels. There is no room for America or the Commonwealth in this formulation.

With deepest respect, this view is a dangerous fantasy. Law without sanction is not law. Law without force to sustain it is idle dreaming. A worldwide totalitarian movement has declared war on our common civilization. No collection of resolutions, however cleverly drafted, will restrain it. Thus, the notion of the European Union that this challenge may be met by the means of criminal law is fatally flawed.

The special relationship between Great Britain and the United States has had many facets. The most important ones have had to do with military coordination and, especially, the sharing of intelligence. If and when you decide to cast your lot with the European Union, this coordination and sharing will likely end. The European Union is establishing its own rules regarding intelligence sharing and will insist that you follow them. We, on

the other hand, recognize that the European Union considers itself our competitor and, frequently, our antagonist. Thus we cannot integrate our most sensitive information systems with them. In short, you must choose.

In doing so, we urge you to keep some things in mind: America is the world's greatest economic and military power, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The trajectory of these factors will be increasingly unfavorable to the European Union because of the relentless demographics of their shrinking and aging populations. The developing multicultural makeup of Europe brings with it inevitable dilution of the perspectives and values once thought to comprise Western civilization.

As we see it, the United Kingdom is considering debarking from a sturdy ship and climbing onto a sinking one. In doing so, you would abandon your only true friends. We should not need to remind you that these include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and some of the Commonwealth, as well as ourselves.

Perhaps you have already made up your minds. Perhaps it is already too late. But think about what you are giving up.

We will not turn our backs on you. Yet, if you integrate your intelligence services with the European Union, there is only so much we can do. We will try our best to aid you in the great struggle that is now beginning. The gathering storm is there for all but the willfully blind to see. But we will have a greater chance for victory if, as before, we fight together.

Gene Poteat is president of the Association for Intelligence Officers. William Anderson is a Lecturer at Harvard University.


Scott said...

Perfectly correct, tragically true, and sadly impotent to stop the never-ending cessation of Britain from its own history, brother nations and values.

Entering the ECC, and so substantially abandoning the Commonwealth in all economic and political matters, was the beginning of this. Only our withdrawal from the EU will be the end.

Anonymous said...

Very true, but in parts a lot of rhetorical fustian. Informal mechanisms for solidarity such as characterised relations between Canada, the UK, Australia and NZ until WWII totally failed, as they were unable to withstand the disintegrating pressures of the 20th Century.

What we need is not a lot of rhetoric about the brotherhood of nations, but some solid proposal, such as an official invitation to join NAFTA. The British people have been convinced by Euro propaganda that Britain is too small to survive on its own. (Botswana seems to manage fine, but that's no never mind.) Therefore, we will never leave the EU until we are presented with a viable alternative in place for us to subscribe to after our leaving.

Throw us a lifebelt, chaps, and we'll grab it right enough. But ask us to jump and hope that someone throws us a lifebelt when they get round to it, and it's a harder sell...


Anonymous said...

Two quotes with commentary:

"The developing multicultural makeup of Europe brings with it inevitable dilution of the perspectives and values once thought to comprise Western civilization."

Coming from Americans one has to laugh. Brazil not Britain is your closest cousin.

"Gene Poteat is president of the Association for Intelligence Officers. William Anderson is a Lecturer at Harvard University."

Intelligence Officers? I say Iraq.

Harvard University? I say Dershowitz.

Scott said...

Re: Iraq, Dershowitz.

Hmm. Not sure that's a particularly satisfactory or meaningful response.

Anonymous said...

To put it another way, the America of fifty or sixty years ago no longer exists. The Harvard of Professor Allan Dershowitz and the neo-Trotskyite adventure in Iraq is our reality. In any case, even many years ago one would have found few real Anglophiles in positions of power in Washington. The world described by Alastair Cooke in many ways never existed at all. Let's not pretend the Suez Crisis and the last five years never happened.

Scott said...

I see what you mean.

I don't know that the Iraq adventure can be so completely dismissed out of hand, though. It's possibly the least lethal war waged in our histories, and though I don't believe democracy should be its goal (or that democracy is the best means of achieving stability), we had little option but to knock Saddam's brains out. Even those who profess the intelligence was wrong, say it was only wrong by a matter of 5 - 7 years (e.g. George Tenet's new book).

I believe in "more rubble, less trouble" in some respects (to quote John Derbyshire) - a prolonged (if necessary), lethal, targetted, brutal assault upon the gangs and terrorists in Iraq, who I see no reason to let up on. We should be flooding the place with troops - there can't be any argument that these aren't terrorists. I'm not interested in what 'created' them, since I don't think terrorism has a root cause except for the individual's depravity. They don't HAVE to react like that, to anything.

The whole thing isn't Trotskyist, but the mania about democracy is. A people have to be ready; I would suggest that, outside of Israel, the state of most societies in the Middle East (at best fractured between moderates and extremists) is presently beyond it.


As for the Americans being dependable allies - yes, they are, but on their own terms. They were in large part responsible for dismantling much of the British Empire, have persistently worked to diminish the power and influence of Great Britain, and are content for it to exist as a tamed, dependent, defanged, quaint ally, enjoying its pomp (see: the Queen) but having forcibly and forever extracted its virility.

Dundonald said...

Cato, I would say that Britannia’s decks are festooned with lifebelts, as our global connections could facilitate any manner of future trade agreements, besides the obvious one of joining NAFTA (Angela Merkel’s idea of an EU-US single market will shoot that particular fox). However, even if other options were offered to us, I’m just not sure that we would jump.

The EU is not, and never has been about trade. We are bound so inextricably to the EU’s political aims that our only hope is for the EU’s ultimate collapse as a political construct. Luckily, history tells us that this is more likely than not. In the absence of a common demos, a common foreign and security policy will not work.

Like the Soviet Union before it, we will awake one day to see the end of the European Union as we know it, with its ultimate downfall being attributed to factors entirely unrelated to the activities of the EU-sceptic movement. Mr Blair’s final act as Prime Minister—committing Britain to a revised text of the wretched “Constitution for Europe”—may well prove to be the end game, not in the process of European Union, but perhaps in its very destruction.

One can but hope!

El Jefe Maximo said...

Splendid, and very timely, especially considering the person H.M. is presumably preparing to ask to form a new government.

If only we really did have one enemy -- one "worldwide totalitarian movement [that] has declared war on our common civilization." I fear that there are two -- and the second of these movements, what John Fonte has been pleased to dub "transnational progressivism" is amongst us. All of us in the Anglosphere will have to cope with the domestic enemy -- the pernicious anti-culture that hates its mother civilization -- before we can successfully fight the Islamicist movement.