Obama's Soft Threat to Democracy and Britain
These reactions are indicative of the contempt the political elites have for the concept of democratic accountability.
In a high-stakes gamble, British Prime Minister David Cameron said last week, in his long anticipated speech about the European Union, that he would like the EU to be an open, internal market based on nation states rather than the centralizing and protectionist supranational European superstate currently in the making. To achieve this vision, the EU treaty, which explicitly calls for "an ever closer union," needs to be revised. Cameron promised the British public that he would renegotiate the treaty to allow Britain to opt out of centralizing EU policies. He also committed to holding a referendum on Britain's EU membership after the renegotiation, or by 2017 at the latest.
Cameron says he is confident that he will be able to persuade his EU colleagues of his views. If he fails, however, it will leave the British Conservative Party with no other option than leading Britain out of the EU. The odds, moreover, are against Cameron.
His speech was not well received on the continent: Cameron was accused of pandering to the British electorate. Guido Westerwelle, Germany's Foreign Minister sniffed that Cameron wants to "cherry pick" which aspects of EU membership to take or leave. Bernard Cazeneuve, France's minister for the EU, said that the EU is not "an a la carte package." Spain and Italy were equally critical, while EU President Herman Van Rompuy cast doubt on whether a major revision of the treaty – essential to Cameron's strategy – would take place.
These reactions are indicative of the contempt the political elites have for the concept of democratic accountability. Cameron was right to insist that democratic accountability is currently lacking in the EU, while this should be one of the basic principles on which it is built. As The Wall Street Journal noted: "It says something about the mentality of too many European officials today that they are shocked that a British Prime Minister would put British interests and values at the core of his concerns."
The reason why so many European politicians seem prepared to sacrifice prosperity and democratic representation on the altar of centralization is that their political cultures lack the democratic tradition of Britain. It is no coincidence that Switzerland, the most democratic country in Europe and also the one with the longest democratic tradition, categorically refuses to join the EU.
Apart from Switzerland, the strongest democratic traditions are found in the countries belonging to the so-called Anglosphere. Cameron began his speech by referring to the British character, "independent, forthright, passionate in defense of our sovereignty." He added that "in Europe's darkest hour, we helped keep the flame of liberty alight. Across the continent, in silent cemeteries, lie the hundreds of thousands of British servicemen who gave their lives for Europe's freedom." Indeed, and the same applies to Americans, Canadians and Australians – the other nations of the so-called Anglosphere, the set of English-speaking nations of European stock with a Western cultural heritage.
In his 2004 book, The Anglosphere Challenge, American author James C. Bennett argued that the cultural and legal traditions of English-speaking nations make them particularly sensitive to anti-democratic tendencies. Historian Andrew Roberts points out that the Anglosphere was central in defeating Nazism and Communism in Europe. He says that it will also be crucial for the defeat of Islamism. Bat Ye'or argues in her book Eurabia, that the EU is one of the vehicles of Islamization in Europe today. By undermining the national identities of its member-states, which are seen as incompatible with the aim of building a pan-European superstate, the EU is also depriving the European peoples of the identity which they badly need if they are to assimilate the masses of Muslim immigrants who have settled in Europe during the past decades.
Judging from the American reaction to David Cameron's speech, however, it seems that Britain can expect little support from the Anglosphere in its opposition to the centralizing EU tendencies. Prior to his speech, Washington warned Cameron not to be too critical of the EU and not to allow a referendum on the EU.
Philip Gordon, the US assistant secretary for European Affairs, was sent to London to tell the British government that "referendums have often turned countries inwards." It is unclear what that assessment is based on: countries that allow referendums are usually the most democratic in the world and democracy is characterized by openness to the outside world. A Downing Street spokesman reacted to the American intervention with the remark: "The US wants an outward looking EU with Britain in it, and so do we."
"We benefit when the EU is unified, speaking with a single voice. That is in the American interest," Gordon said. The British newspaper The Guardian remarked that the American intervention "appeared to be a clear message to the [British] government that the 'special relationship' [between the UK and US] would be devalued in the eyes of the Obama administration if Britain left the EU, or got bogged down in drawn-out negotiations on the details of its membership." If anything, the American intervention, in the form of a soft threat, indicating its refusal to back Britain, shows that the "special relationship" is already over. That is, if it was not already over four years ago, based on Obama's first act on his first day in office: the unsolicited return of a bust of Winston Churchill, on loan to the US from to from Britain. (What would have been wrong with a closet?)
The White House also warned Britain that its significance to the world and to the US would be weakened by leaving the EU. Persuading Britain to stay in the EU would be "in America's national interest," according to a senior US official. William Legge, the Earl of Dartmouth, reacted by pointing out that the position of the Obama administration is not in line with America's traditional view: "There have been times in history when the US had been very pleased that Britain has remained independent of the continent, and we expect that to continue," he said. "It is not the job of the UK to make the work of US diplomats easier. It is our job to secure our own interests."
Dartmouth is a member of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). This party advocates withdrawal of Britain from the EU. It did very well in recent by-elections, and currently polls almost 14%. UKIP is also very critical of Islamization.
Clive Crook, senior editor of The Atlantic, criticized the Obama administration by comparing Obama's attitude towards Britain and the EU with that of the US and NAFTA: "I think Britain should call on the US to start recasting NAFTA as a full monetary and political union. Be visionary, for heaven's sake. Put the Federal Reserve in Mexico City as a measure of good faith. Europe would benefit if North America were unified, speaking with a single voice."
John Redwood, a Conservative British MP and a former cabinet minister, wrote on his blog: "It is a crowning irony that the Obama administration now thinks the UK should be subservient to [EU] rule in many areas, just so the US has a more acceptable lobbyist at the EU court. We wish to be self governing. We have no wish to be told that we should lose our democracy in the cause of advancing America's."
But, of course, what is at stake is not advancing America's democracy at the expense of Britain's. America's democracy cannot be incompatible with Britain's. What we are witnessing is the Obama administration actively interfering in European politics to advance European centralization. This is a threat to democracy and freedom in Europe. History will show that it will be a threat to democracy and freedom in America as well.
Reader comments on this item
|Centralization and Obama [138 words]||Uriahh||Jan 30, 2013 20:28|
|The UK path [42 words]||Henry S.||Jan 30, 2013 13:42|
|Politics is not always right [119 words]||Eric Price||Jan 30, 2013 10:27|
Comment on this item
by Khaled Abu Toameh
"Armed robbery in broad daylight." — Palestinians, after Hamas "seized" $750,000 from Gaza bank.
Fatah accused Hamas of "squandering" $700 million of financial aid earmarked for the Palestinian victims of war. Fatah wants to ensure that the millions of dollars intended for the Gaza Strip will pass through its hands and not end up in Hamas's bank accounts. Relying on Fatah in this regard is like asking a cat to guard the milk.
The head of the Palestinian Authority's Anti-Corruption Commission revealed that his group has retrieved $70 million of public funds fund embezzled by Palestinian officials. Arab and Western donors need to make sure that their money does not end up (once again) in the wrong hands. Without a proper mechanism of accountability and transparency, hundreds of millions of dollars are likely to find their way into the bank accounts of both Hamas and Fatah leaders.
by Mudar Zahran
"If Hamas does not like you for any reason all they have to do now is say you are a Mossad agent and kill you." — A., a Fatah member in Gaza.
"Hamas wanted us butchered so it could win the media war against Israel showing our dead children on TV and then get money from Qatar." — T., former Hamas Ministry officer.
"They would fire rockets and then run away quickly, leaving us to face Israeli bombs for what they did." — D., Gazan journalist.
"Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot. That way people had to stay in their homes, even if they were about to get bombed. Hamas held the whole Gazan population as a human shield." — K., graduate student
"The Israeli army allows supplies to come in and Hamas steals them. It seems even the Israelis care for us more than Hamas." — E., first-aid volunteer.
"We are under Hamas occupation, and if you ask most of us, we would rather be under Israeli occupation… We miss the days when we were able to work inside Israel and make good money. We miss the security and calm Israel provided when it was here." — S., graduate of an American university, former Hamas sympathizer.
by Ben Cohen
Now, with the Islamic State's self-proclaimed caliphate having captured key oil wells in the Middle East this year, foreign oil has become an even more lethal financial weapon-of-choice for those seeking to destroy democracy and further escalate the War on Terror.
That President Barack Obama failed even to mention oil as a critical factor in the war against IS during his speech to the nation on September 10, is an omission both revealing and dangerous in terms of how his administration wants to depict the stakes involved in this latest confrontation with the jihadis.
by Lawrence A. Franklin
One Pakistani recruiter of child suicide bombers describes these children as "tools provided by God."
Another Muslim cleric in a madrassa [Islamic boys' school] describes child suicide bombers as "a gift from Allah that we have an unlimited number willing to be sacrificed to teach Americans a lesson."
Using children as suicide bombers will stop when... they stop "condoning the killing of innocents."
by Denis MacEoin
"No religion condones the killing of innocents." — U.S. President Barack Obama, September 10, 2014.
"Islam is a religion of peace." — U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, September 13, 2014.
"There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam." — U.K. Imam Anjem Choudary, CBN News, April 5, 2010.
Regrettably it is impossible to re-interpret the Qur'an in a "moderate" manner. The most famous modern interpretation by Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, leads the reader again and again into political territory, where jihad is at the root of action.
If they deviated from the true faith -- as we are seeing in the Islamic State today -- "backsliders," like pagans, were to be fought until they either accepted Islam or were killed.
In India alone, between 60 and 80 million Hindus may have been put to death by Muslim armies between the years 1000-1525.