Representation of the United Kingdom’s Role in Maintaining the Hegemonic System in the 21st Century
Introduction
Although during Queen Victoria, United Kingdom became known as the empire on which the sun never sets due to the extent of its dominated territories but by the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, its global position has undergone fundamental and significant changes. In fact, the outcomes of the Second World War for the British government included severe economic losses, erosion of military capabilities, the decline of international status, the independence and liberation of colonial territories and finally being placed under the United States’ sphere of influence.
Since the 1940s, United Kingdom’s specialties with the United States have begun, despite some ups and downs, through the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aiming at confronting the Soviet Union; such relations are now served as the cornerstone of British foreign policy. In the final years of the Cold War, the idea of the “New World Order” purposed by the American authorities and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, laid the groundwork for White House officials to adopt this attitude that they should take more serious steps by setting aside the bipolar system and create a hierarchical structure within the international system. In the course of this period and years later, the British government tried to establish closer ties with the United States’ government in an attempt to serve its own interests. Experts believe that in this regard, as a close ally of the United States, United Kingdom has often sought to increase its global influence (Mix, 2013: 7).
On November 10, 1997, Tony Blair in his first year as the prime minister announced that: “We should aim to deepen our relationship with the United States at all levels” (Harvey, 2011: 7). That is why, according to Sayyed Kamal, a member of the European Parliament, in the current situation, there are one million English labourers who are working for United States’ companies in the United Kingdom and, conversely, one million Americans work for British companies in the United States.
The United Kingdom and the United States have made the largest direct foreign investment in the world. The special relationship between these two is like a permanent marriage that has its own ups and downs (Dempsey, 2015).
Currently, the United Kingdom that is ranked as the fourth most powerful military and the sixth-largest economy in the world (Gardiner, 2010) cannot be a superpower. Rather this country as a middle power in the global arena is seeking to pursue its policies and goals alongside the American government. One of these policies has been maintaining the domination of the United States in the international arena.
The Imperialist System and the United States
According to Wallerstein, hegemonic power has been applied three times in the modern world system. It was first introduced by United Provinces in the middle of the seventeenth century. for the second time, it has been applied by the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century and finally, the United States has been implemented such power since the twentieth century up to the present (Knight, 2014: 6). Some theorists acknowledge that after World War II, the United States had been the hegemonic world power, though, they have different ideas about the form as well as ascent and decline of such phenomenon.
Realist theories merely consider the supremacy of hegemonic power stating that a country that is the only superior power would be called a hegemon. But according to neo-Marxist theories, the United States’ hegemony has not been a real hegemony after World War II since they emphasize the issue of satisfaction in hegemony (Hajiyousofi and Alvand, 2008: 169).
However, some believe that the current structure of the international system is Uni-Multipolar within which “the world is unipolar in terms of military force and is multipolar in terms of capabilities and economic conditions” (Griffiths, 2004: 74).
Employing economic and military instruments, the United States’ government has been working to create an international culture through which its close allies would gain strength and the opponents are defeated. Therefore, the United States carried out the following actions:
- Exerting pressure on other countries to adapt to American values and practices regarding Human rights and democracy.
- Preventing other countries from achieving military capabilities that can suppress the United States’ conventional superiority.
- Grading countries based on their adherence to American standards in the field of human rights, drugs, terrorism, the proliferation of ballistic missiles and nuclear programs.
- Protecting the interests of large American companies under the slogans of free trade and free-market along with shaping the policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to serve the interests of those American companies.
- Imposing sanctions against countries where American standards are not met.
- Withdrawing from the arms control treaty upon which the national missile defence plan will not be achieved (Griffiths, 2004: 68);
British public diplomacy is mainly carried out through three institutions: British Foreign Ministry, British Council, and BBC World Service. The government of the United Kingdom exercises its executive authority through a number of government departments: The Foreign Ministry is responsible for diplomatic relations, while the British Council manages cultural relations and the BBC is in charge of media communications around the world. In addition to the three government agencies, several other institutions support British public diplomacy efforts. The effective use of these institutions plays an important role in British public diplomacy (Kalin, 2011: 13-14). Thus, British public diplomacy has set out to carry out the following actions in an effort to ensure the continuation of the United States-led domineering system:
- Change the attitudes and behaviour of United States’ enemies.
- Obtaining support for United States’ macroeconomic goals.
- Formation of or breaking down the strategic alliances.
- Countering the propaganda distributed by anti-American governments and groups.
- Condemning and excreting global pressures on the countries that oppose the United States.
- Justifying the United States’ military actions to neutral key actors.
- Eliminating the self-confidence of the enemy.
- Strengthening and spreading the spirit of self-confidence among the allies;
- Forcing the enemy to surrender.
- Backing the United States’ military actions (for example: to authorize house search, drawing the support of local leaders.
- Changing the perceptions and expectations of those who seek to negotiate and resolve the disputes during the conflicts (Pratkanis, 2009: 114).
Some argue that there is a strong connection between public diplomacy and soft power since this diplomacy has invisible and indirect influences on the culture, values and mental attitudes of the citizens of the target country (Snow, 2009: 3).
The alignment of cultural attitudes and the adjustment of London’s system of values with Washington allows the British authorities to place the doctrine of liberal democracy as the basis for their public diplomacy, which means promoting Western values in general and American values in particular.
Diplomatic Tools
Traditionally, fundamental support of United States’ foreign policy forms the backbone of British foreign policy upon which all British elites would agree and act (Curtis, 2013: 151).
The primary role of the British government in this area is that the British ministers and officials act as American diplomats. In other words, they take on the role of being a founder of the international coalition to support the United States’ strategy. Washington and London had close ties and cooperation in terms of the issue of Iraq in order to ensure the continuation of sanctions. In addition, the United States and the United Kingdom are trying to play a pioneering role among their opponents (most of the countries in the world) in obtaining permission from the United Nations to legitimize the military intervention in Iraq.
These British ministers, especially Tony Blair and Jack Straw, travelled around the world to incite different countries to support American English policy regarding Iraq at the present time and with respect to Afghanistan in the past. Similarly, the ministers and British diplomats were trying to win NATO support for the bombardments of Yugoslavia that basically had been an American-British operation. In this regard, at the onset of the Afghanistan war, the Wall Street Journal, described Blair as the “latest ambassador to the United States” and wrote:
“Mr. Blair will visit the newly-formed coalition members as the United States’ chief ambassador” in order to fight against terrorism. “Blair has become a self-appointed consultant to Bush’s administration in such a way that whenever Mr. Bush does not want to leave his country, Mr. Blair would be ready to go instead.”
On November 10, 1997, Tony Blair, in his first year of working as a prime minister, announced that “being strong in Europe and being strong with the United States; there is no choice in between. Being strong with one means being strong with another, our aim is to deepen our relationship with the United States at all levels; We are the bridge between the United States and Europe, let us use it. We would not gain prosperity when there are limited settings for the United Kingdom and the United States to work together internationally (Harvey, 2011: 7). That’s why the United States’ Congress in its report highlights the special relationship with the United Kingdom:
The United Kingdom often regards itself as a loud voice for shaping the issues of United States’ foreign policy... On the other hand, British support has often contributed to increasing the international credibility and value of the United States’ policies and initiatives. In addition, such phenomenon would result in establishing close ties between the United Kingdom and the United States to pursue common interests within the platforms such as the United Nations, NATO and other international organizations. The Washington-London political relations include a vast network of individuals who are affiliated with governmental and private institutions. Relations between national leaders at the individual level are often analyzed by some observers as the symbol of broader relations between the two countries (Mix, 2013: 7).
Also, the British government as a United States’ agent plays a role in countries where United States’ officials do not have the opportunity to travel. For example, Matthew Steven Gould the United Kingdom ambassador to the Occupied Territories who was originally a Jew and previously served as a diplomat at the British embassy in Tehran for 30 months, in an interview with the Haaretz newspaper said, “after the end of my mission in Iran, I went directly to Washington (as the British foreign policy advisor and representative of the United Kingdom Joint Intelligence Committee in the United States) and discussed the issue of Iran with the United States for a long time (with officials as well as the intelligence and political experts) since due to the lack of United States diplomatic presence In Iran, one of the major problems that Washington faces is that people do not have the experience of living in Iran and therefore they cannot properly analyze the situation in this country” (Fars News Agency, 2011).
A decade after the invasion of Iraq, the Washington Post introduced the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as George W. Bush’s poodle. Answering the question of why Blair still looks like a Bush’s Poodle, the newspaper writes: “He has no choice but to defend the former United States president in order to maintain and defend his legacy (Saunders, 2013).
But the British columnist Curtis believes that “it’s a mistake to assume that the United Kingdom is only a trained dog” of the United States as if the country is willing to blindly follow Washington orders to maintain a special relationship. The situation is actually more serious than it seems. Most puppet governments feel that they are dependent on their masters but it is not the case with the situation of England during the “election,” supporting the United States measures and consciously showing servile obedience to this country. Many of the United States’ worst policies are backed up by the British elite who agree with these policies willingly and freely and not because of the requirements of loyalty to a special relationship.
We recall a time when the English elite ruled the world while completely neglecting the moral standards, so today it’s not surprising that their successors would assume the same freedom of action for the United States” (Curtis, 2013: 151).
Media Tools
During the Kosovo War, The Guardian editors alluded to that issue showing that the war represents the battle between Good and Evil. They criticized some United States and British tactics in various editorials entitled the Kosovo War, yet did not question the overall strategy of fighting or wrongness of bombardments (Curtis, 2013: 86). Immediately after the war started, The Guardian’s editors stated that “at the very beginning of the work, we should say clearly and without provoking the people that the United States had the right to show a military response.”
Martin Woollacott, the columnist of this newspaper, later added: “We should accept that the United State must carry out a military action.” The rights that are defined for and applied to the defenders of civilization are completely different from the rights of those who are regarded as the opponents in the view of the Western. Nonetheless, for example, the editors of The Guardian and Mr. Woollacott did not assume rights for the Sudanese leaders to recognize the “necessity” of attacking the United States due to its invasion of Khartoum in 1998 (Curtis, 2013: 87).
It should be noted that what is not reflected and reported in the British press and media is as important as the published reports and articles. Sometimes they say that British media are often critics of the United States, but in contrast to the reality of United States’ foreign policy, what is being criticized by the media is rather incoherent and superficial.
The media never cover the scope of American policies, especially supporting the authoritarian and repressive regimes, which has led to the violation and erosion of human rights around the world. In the same manner, American economic policies including its policies in the World Trade Organization, which is shaping the global economy in favour of the American companies, are also largely ignored by British media. Instead of revealing their hidden objectives, reports of American military interventions usually focus on the tactics and the analysis merely addresses the realities of intervention that whether it will benefit the American elite or not.
The fact is that the United States always violates the universal moral standards, yet the British media have not given any country the freedom to commit international crimes as they did with respect to the United States; of course, their own government is also excluded (Curtis, 2013: 152).
Another function of the British government is of the same importance. Tony Blair had been turned into a prominent propagandist of the West’s “strategy.” The British media support for NATO operations in Kosovo was far more important than its military assistance. This task involves “falsification” in media and providing unprecedented rational justifications for British-American-led warfare that are reflected in ministers’ speeches.
Tony Blair illustrated the strategy of the “allies” in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq in a more modern way which aims at attracting the media attention and subsiding the anger of public opinion rather than the dumb United States government (that lacks media literacy) (Curtis, 2013: 150)
The claims of American leaders that they act on the basis of ethics are always reflected without any criticism (Curtis, 2013: 152). The liberal wing media in the United Kingdom which provide surprising justifications for American policies, are always introducing themselves as a critic of American politics. Certainly, this is just a joke (Curtis, 2013: 153).
The project director of the United States’ Project at Chatham House, Xenia Wickett believes that “special relationships or as Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron stated during their meeting on March 12, 2012, the essential relations, are based on the values and common history of the relationship between the two nations, but similar values cannot be preserved as the same as a relationship would be: while shared feelings are vital, they should be supported and backed by common interests the capabilities (Dempsey, 2015).
Material Capabilities
In addition to software capacities, United Kingdom uses its hard and semi-hard power as the country’s material capabilities in the military and intelligence fields in order to strengthen the hegemonic position of the United States and take effective steps to maintain the hegemony of the United States in terms of material capabilities.
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments