“The UK’s relationship with the US has proved strong enough over time to bear the weight of honest disagreement. It does not require unconditional support where our interests or judgments differ.”--The Chilcot Report.
The whole point of publishing an inquiry into the 2003 -- yes that's more than a dozen years ago -- invasion of Iraq during the Summer with three great sporting events (Wimbledon, the Tour, and the European Cup) distracting us is to have a few days of page 2-5 stories and then move to other Summer diversions (an Olympics, some Royal Scandal etc.). Undoubtedly, the Chilcot report will be significant to some lawyers and future historians.
But as it happens, the report appeared after extraordinary weeks in which the hollowness at the center of British political life has been exposed. I don't write the previous sentence with joy (recall). But it is worth remembering that Tony Blair, a bright and energetic even moralistic man capable of winning elections, was once the recipient of the kind of adulation now showered on, say, Justin Trudeau.
Supporting G.W. Bush on Irag and Brexit are freely chosen, self-inflicted wounds that harm lots of innocents locally and elsewhere. On a surface level they have in common the utter lack of contingency planning. This is no small matter; if the capacity of collecting taxes is the bare minimum of being a state; then preparing for worst-case scenarios is the bare minimum of competence in governance. This suggests a very deep rot in the bureaucratic and political functioning of the British state.
On a deeper level they show an utter lack of clarity on the political, economic, and military interests of the UK. The UK's involvement in the Iraq war was, in large part, the product of a misguided commitment to a 'special relationship' that was one-sided and never truly in the UK's interest--it was a species of self-deception. (On the British side, the Iraq war was also a modern kind of imperial project fueled by greed [perhaps a way to advertise British armaments and grab some oil contracts] and pseudo-humanitarianism.) What it showed is that the UK's elites have never figured out a rational foreign policy, say, since the Suez-fiasco (that's 1956). Even the authors of the Chilcot report buy into a narrative that emphasizes the strength of the relationship.
Iraq is directly and indirectly linked to Brexit. Directly, because it means that the key political, economic, and (arguably, I am no expert) military interests of the UK remained undefined, undefended, and unsupported by the public. I mention this because it is common to hear educated observers to complain about 'ignorant voters.' But these were, in fact, never educated in the UK's true interests because the elites never seemed to have grasped it. Here's a non-trivial statistic: the EU accounts for half of the UK's trade.
To be sure, I am willing to allow that the UK's interest are not inside the EU. Mid-sized capitalist, countries can survive without being part of the EU (South Korea, Australia spring to mind). It may well be in the interest of the majority of English citizens to stop being Europe's bankers, let the City dwindle, end being a property/equity hedge-fund for the upper classes, and allow other parts of the economy to flourish. (And, for all I know (and I really don't), the English back their way into this path.)
Finally, Iraq is one of the indirect causes of Brexit. Because among the effects of the political chain-reaction that followed from 'Iraq' and then 'Syria' is the stream of refugees that die nightly on the TV news on the seas and shores of Europe. The British ruling elites have been shameful in their response (this is not to giver other Europeans a pass!); while systematically refusing to use the word 'refugee' (or 'asylum') the prime minister, David Cameron did use “swarm of people.” His government had no moral authority nor a vocabulary and, thus, no shared commitments or emotions to challenge the increasing xenophobia in the 'leave' campaign because its policies had already failed basic decency. Those of us that wish the British well can only hope that the contest between Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom is also the occasion for a number of serious debates over the future. But it is probably too much to expect from people that have risen to the top in this environment.
Comments