If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The UK does not any extensive foreign policy?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Tony Blair often speaks of an 'ethical foreign policy' and being a 'force for good in the world'. Aren't these foolhardy notions?
Since Britain is not a superpower (and has not been a major world power for many decades) why do we need to send military personnel to various places across the world to 'aid' in numerous conflicts?
Of any Western European nation, the UK arguably possesses the greatest global diplomatic role; states of equivalent military/economic strength (like, say, France, Germany or maybe Italy) hold a far lesser role.
It's time the UK stopped punching above its weight and lessen its general role of diplomacy in the world.
Since Britain is not a superpower (and has not been a major world power for many decades) why do we need to send military personnel to various places across the world to 'aid' in numerous conflicts?
Of any Western European nation, the UK arguably possesses the greatest global diplomatic role; states of equivalent military/economic strength (like, say, France, Germany or maybe Italy) hold a far lesser role.
It's time the UK stopped punching above its weight and lessen its general role of diplomacy in the world.
0
Comments
The UK has an increased diplomatic role, surely, because of its' historical links with most of the world. Britain may not be a superpower, only the US can lay claim to that title, but arguably it can exert considerable influence.
We pursue the foreign policy because we can, because we're not isolationist.
Two words; noblesse oblige
Since the armed forces of the UK are overstretched, what is the rationale behind despatching troops overseas?
Britain should be free to trade with other nations, yet we should refrain from any political or economic interventionism.
Now put that on a macro scale. Trading is part and parcel of a diplomatic entourage that nation-states have to participate in. Committing armed forces is the ultimate symbol of friendship; that we as a nation are *not* prepared to stand idly by and allow bad things to happen to our friends. And that, in turn, helps our trade.
Where's your issue?
FDR summed up that sentiment nicely: "When your neighbour's house is on fire, you do not haggle over the price of your garden hose".
Since Britain is a member of NATO (a organisation based on a treaty signed in good faith) we are obligated to defend our allies and they are duty bound to defend us when the opportunity arises.
That should be the extent of any foreign policy that Britain pursues.
Kosovo was an ethical nature - we could not, as right minded people, stand by and allow genocide on such a scale.
Sierra Leone was an ex-Commonwealth issue.
If you have children, one day, despite the fact that you have nurtured them, will you refuse them help when they are older?
If your nextdoor neighbour's family is being killed, and you have the capability to stop that, why shouldn't you?
Was once one of our colonies. We were asked to help protect the peace, or at least to help allow peace to happen.
You have a problem with that?
And you want to be a politician? :rolleyes:
NATO only applies to our NATO allies. Not any others...and there are many others
But this shouldn't be the "extent of our foreign policy".
When you ask why we should help other people, my answer is because we can.
This is part of you "reducing inequality" approach to politics is it?
So, how do you define worth?
Sincee some people are inherently of more worth than others
And who gets to decide who is "inherently worth more than others"?
And how much do you think you'd be worth through this persons eyes?
All I will say on the issue is that this country would have more money in its coffers if we didn't go sending military aid all over the world.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but i think thats a pretty good reason not to.
Britain has never signed a mutual defence/military co-opertation treaty with any Commonwealth nation (bar Australia and of course Canada since the latter state is a NATO member). In that sense we have no obligation to defend any other Commonwealth country.
Thankfully most of us still have them.
BTW You skipped past the "define worth" comment. Can you do it? Define what you mean by "worth" that is...
Why bother posting in politics, if you cannot support your views? You cannot define "worth" because you do not understand what it means, what your "policy" actually means.
You truly are a moron.
You cannot say which African country you went to, because you haven't been.
You cannot support your "policies" because you don't actually have any.
In fact, you, if anything really define what a "worthless" human being is.
As for coming to politics, I come here to discuss things. It's only the leftists here who find my views offensive. If I do offend, I don't apologise for that.
And I since I possess the courage to place my views on the line (so to speak), why doesn't anybody do the same?
Everyone knows that some people are intrinsically nice and others are scum. Such is life.
Where in Ghana did you go?
You attempt to draw generalised assumptions about Africa generally from your supposed visit to Ghana. This is absurd; Ghana is one of the more successful African countries, and is positively luxurious in comparison with some Eastern and Central African states.
Besides, since I have not been to every African nation(have you?
And of what relevance is 'where I visited'?
it's relavent because everyone has you down as a lying bullshit merchant. full of crap, little understanding. so look up some African country on the net then give us all the figures and details etc.....so we can have a laugh.
My point exactly! :rolleyes:
You're the one that brought it up