The political role of Great Britain in modern world

The political role of Great Britain in modern world

school # 5

The political role of Great Britain in modern world

by Timur Saatashvili, 11 “A” grade

English teacher:

Altynova Galina Anatolyevna

Ryazan, 2001

The political role of Great Britain in modern world.

Analyzing the current world political situation I wonder why since the

beginning of the twentieth century Great Britain, a colonial empire in the

past, been losing its influence in the world step by step and nowadays it

is worth speaking not about the British political but merely about holding

its own current stand? Why doesn’t it want Europe to be united and

independent of the US? This problem becomes more urgent nowadays when the

American influence’s weakening and the political opponent which prevents us

from being a full member of the European society. The U.K. takes part in

all international committees in Chechnya. Its territory is used by lots of

anti – Russian Wakhabbist organizations that provides Chechen terrorists

and separatists. Its subversive activities have the only aim to isolate

Russia. And I couldn’t help taking such a theme where I will analyze the

British policy, explain it and try to find alternatives for the English

foreign political line.

After the Second World War England lost its political independence,

becoming an American satellite.

Forming the Anglo – American alliance was especially influenced by the

so – called Americanocentrist conceptions by Zbignev Bzhezinski and

Nicholas Spikesman.

According to Spikesman’s theory, the geographical authority of any

state takes shape by not its inland territories, but coastline. He

emphasizes three large centers of world power: the Atlantic Seashore of

North America and Europe and the Far East of Eurasia. These territories

were called a rimland. This way Great Britain and the US must from an

alliance and that was done soon.

Being an American ally, England has become a reliable Fifth Column in

the European Union. The British government has been trying its best to

prevent Europe from unifying processes, once protesting against founding

European Central Bank and the singe European currency “euro” and attempting

together with the US to quarrel the European states with one another and to

direct their aggression against the third one like Yugoslavia. Due to its

pro – American foreign policy, Great Britain has become the second leader

of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. right now the U.K. and the US

are at the head of all NATO’s military operations, like “The Shield of the

desert”, “The Storm in the desert”, in 1991, “The Fox in the desert” in

1998 and the anti – Yugoslavian aggression in 1999. Speaking about the

NATO’s last campaign, the U.K. and the US destabilized an ethnic situation

in Europe, because during the NATO’s bombardments tens and thousands of

thousands of Albanian refugees poured into Germany, Albania and some other

countries. That needs no saying, the Albanians from Kosovo and Methokia

complicated the social – political situation in these states. Its result

was the criminal increase and the growth of unemployment among the

immigrants.

This way we can make the only confusion: the foreign policy of Great

Britain (i.e. the US) in Europe has the aim to weaken the main integrating

power – Russia and Germany as much as possible.

As fro Germany, being a powerful state, it is spreading its economic

influence in Chechia, Slovakia and especially in Chernogoria where

President Milo Dzuganovich put DM in circulation instead of the Yugoslavian

dinar.

Of course, it has weakened the British authority in the Balkan region

very much, and the English government cannot ignore it. Unfortunately, the

U.K.‘s forgotten it’s not a world power. That is why its actions against

every anti – British demarche of European countries are extremely hasty and

asymmetrical. Remember Prime – Minister of Great Britain Anthony Blair’s

intention of liquidating Russian landing troops in 1999 after having

occupied Slatino airport in Prishtina. To my mind it is clear what

consequences would have taken place after that.

But why is the British foreign policy so anti – German – Russian? The

work “The Geographical Axis of History” by English scientist Halfrod

McKinder answers it. According to his theory the alliance of Russia and

Germany to struggle for the world power against Great Britain and the US is

extremely dangerous and fatal for the last ones. Well now it is clear why

the buffer of averagly developed countries between Russia and Germany was

formed and what “Truman’s doctrine” was based on.

Thus nowadays the Anglo – American alliance has achieved its aim,

dividing our states and making our relations rather difficult and cool.

Following the American foreign political way, England must carry the

mutal responsibility for their blunders. The same situation is taking place

in Kosovo and Metkhia now. Due to the Anglo – American pro – Albanian and

anti – Serbian policy the UCK becomes more and more impudent, firing gat

the KFOR’s patrols, occupying Macedonian territory and assaulting tetovo

while the NATO’s doing nothing to protect Kosovo and Macedonia and to

defeat the UCK because of being only very anxious for its soldiers and

nothing more. This way, after the Anglo – American carrions crows’

triumphant air raids to Serbia the NATO cannot cope with a small group of

the UCK’s thugs (or does not want to do it) and has to allow the Federal

troops of Yugoslavia to patrol Kosovo’s part of Yugoslavian – Macedonian

boundaries near Preshevo. Such an embarrassing and foolish situation, of

course, has damaged the British authority in the world.

The prospects of the British co – operation with other states.

As a matter of fact there are only two alternatives of the British

foreign political development. The first one is changing nothing but

England should know nowadays most political analysists agree that soon

playing the role of a sort of a oikumena, the US will exert itself to the

utmost. The American industry and production cannot compete with the

European ones not only in the world but even in its domestic American

market. It is the beginning of the political and economic degradation of

the USA without which the U.K. means nothing. And it is out of question, no

European state will want to deal with the former American satellite. The

British future is awful, I think.

But there is the second way: a very close both political and economic

co – operation with the Eurounion. Well, and what would Great Britain be

able to propose? firstly, the reorganization of the NATO’s troops into the

Eurounion’s ones, liquidation of the American military bases in Europe;

secondly, substituting dollars for “euros” in golden currency reserves of

the European states.

But what way will Great Britain prefer? Time will show.

Well, you see I have proved my hypothesis. In my work I have come to

the following conclusion unconsoling for Great Britain:

1. It does not run its own independent foreign policy, being the US’s

puppet;

2. Its pro – American position antagonizes other European states;

3. The British government must change its foreign policy as quickly as it

is possible.

The list of used literature.

1. Encyclopedia for Children “Avanta +”, volume # 12 “Russia”, p. 640 –

642.

2. Encyclopedia for Children “Avanta +”, volume # 1 “World History”, p.

610 – 613, 657 – 658.

3. Encyclopedia for Children “Avanta +”, volume # 13 “States, Peoples,

Civilizations”, p. 129, 246, 272, 276, 367, 369.

4. “Politicians and Rulers”. T. Varlamova, p. 506.

5. “Russia: the 20-th century. Politics and Culture”. N. Starikov, p.

410.

6. “The Geographical Axis of History”. H. McKinder.

7. “The Politology”. M. Marchenko, p. 375.

This way I have put forward the following hypothesis: the political

authority of Great Britain is nominal nowadays.

To prove it I have used the following methods of getting the material:

> Case Study

> Adapting

> Analysis

> Making Conclusions

> Making Comparisons and Analogies.