There is a significant movement afoot from our friends across the Continent, a movement which, for reasons unbeknown, has somehow escaped the attention of the usually-astute BC political pundits. I am speaking here of David Cameron, the newly elected PM, and of his economic overtures to India.
Mr. Cameron is, relatively speaking, a young man, only 44, and the youngest PM on record. (The legendary William Pitt the Younger, elected at the tender age of 24 as the head of the British government, has got him beat by a country mile; but the term “Prime Minister” wasn’t in use then.) Mr. Cameron is a conservative, besides, and an aristocrat. Yet for all the apparent strikes against him, he appears to display wisdom and acumen far beyond his age.
This development is all the more surprising in light of Britain’s long-standing policy of economic independence. Of all the members who comprise the Eurozone, only the Brits have remained more or less aloof. (To cite but one example, the British pound still stands, though it’s no longer the envy of the world or the mainstay of the UK economy.) But to return to the point at hand, the fact that Britain would bank on its future with India rather with the host of European nations with which it’s already politically and economically aligned, nations with which it presumably shares a great deal of historical and cultural heritage in common, should raise some eyebrows.
I’m not going to bother you now with the pertinent details or the negotiations in progress. You can read all about it in any number of British publications. (Forget the MSM whose main interest appears to have devolved into preoccupation with trivia and the superficial; it’s axiomatic by now that the more significant an event, the less likely it’s going to be covered.) Suffice it to say, it’s a “full-speed ahead” type of approach, no holding back. The British delegation includes prominent diplomats, statesmen, and businesspersons from all walks of life – in short, the best Britain has to offer. And to the best of my knowledge, they’re making progress.
Consequently, the question becomes: What’s the underlying idea? Why India and not Europe? Why this sudden preference for the Orient or the Occident, as the case may be, for changing horses in midstream, rather than sticking to old and proven ways, the ways that work? Has Mr. Cameron gone mad?
Hardly! Apart from the economic situation in India compared to that in the UK – a situation which, I daresay, features the right kind of inequality that I deem necessary if capitalism is to survive and expand beyond its “natural limits” – there are important political parallels: both are liberal democracies, and that’s saying a lot. But the most important of all – and don’t you ever underestimate this, for therein lies the key to Mr. Cameron’s genius! – there is also an “emotional connection.” Yes, I mean the emotional connection that had come part and parcel and become ingrained with colonialism – the good, the bad, and the indifferent. Obviously, Mr. Cameron is banking on that and he's betting on the good, naturally; and for the time being at least, it seems to be working.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - jeannie danna
Roger,
The US should make economic overtures to Mexico.
We squandered all our good will and prosperity after WWII The Marshal Plan was our finest moment just as we squandered most of the good will after 911 we could have moved forward as a global nation, now we can't even agree on a memorial
We could learn something from Prime Minister Cameron.
: ) Great article!
2 - roger nowosielski
Thank, Jeannie. Unfortunately, we are a superpower and our position is we don't need anyone; they need us.
3 - roger nowosielski
I'm reprinting a comment by "Anarcissie," her nom de clavier.
Anarcissie is a frequent poster on the Truthdig website, as per link, and if you don't think you're in any way "intellectually challenged," you might pay them a visit.
Anarcissie asked that I make mention of her "Irish ancestry part," but I don't think it's necessary. The fact is embedded in the comment itself, literally and figuratively. So here it goes:
Looks to me like Perfidious Albion is just doing its usual thing. Most of the Euro Zone, especially the Germans, have been earnestly worrying about Greece and Portugal, but the Brits are off making goo-goo eyes at India. (They already have a “special relationship” with the U.S. ruling class of long standing; the decline of the U.S. may be what’s making them look for a new host.) However, I think this is mainly a little pushing and shoving to get a slightly better spot in the coming, rather static regime of state capitalism which is taking hold in the more advanced and advancing countries. The motto of Britain might well be Pope’s dog-collar inscription:
I am His Majesty’s dog at Kew;
Pray tell me, Sir, whose dog are you?
It is truly a wonder that these people managed to run the world for more than a century.
But I must push aside the ghosts of my Irish ancestors (could you tell?) and note that this fourth phase of capitalism implies certain problems, mainly the generation of the scarcity which is necessary to maintain the capitalist system once war and the disasters of finance capital have been obviated by dirigisme. Consumers will surely grow weary of consuming! Maybe some war-sandboxes could be set up to destroy surplus. Or they could send it to the moon. In any case some hard morphing seems to be coming up.
END OF QUOTE
I'm posting it mainly for the benefit of "our" Brits, and let's not forget the lone Aussie, if only to get their reaction - especially to, if I may call it for short, "the Irish take on things."
4 - roger nowosielski
And now, my response:
Anarcissie,
Apparently you have read my little post. I tend to agree with the general tenor of your response. I think, however, the Brits’ response is innovative and timely. Europe is not where the future lies, so turning to India is a logical move. Anyway, it’s only line with the existing pattern of forming economic alliances (which, in my estimation, will eventually lead to political ones). In short, we are progressing, however slowly, towards economic and political globalization, although in stages. It’s from this process, and out of this crucible, that the world to come will assume its shape - politically, economically and socially - not from any theory we may think of, in other words, but from the events on the ground. My actual vision - something akin to “The United Federation of Planets” a la Star Trek, leaving enough elbow room for peaceful co-existence of autonomous or semi-autonomous communities and a relatively benign administration at the top (with granted powers to enforce peace). Naturally, a distinction has got to be made between large-scale and small-scale economic projects (especially as it pertains to food production, energy, things of that sort). The former will call for responsible administration from the top; as regards the latter, we can always allow capitalism, small-scale version, to thrive (because at that level, it won’t be harmful). Needless to say, the vision entails doing away with nation-states, the process which has already begun. But enough on that.
As to your wonder how come the Brits have ruled the world for as long as they did - well, you’ve got to give credit to their Parliamentary government and a kind of uncanny wisdom. There is an excellent book on the subject by Walter Russell Mead, God and Gold, as per link. It explains the capitalistic expansion, a form of imperialism, of course, by peaceful means. It’s along the lines of Fukuyama’s argument advanced in The End of History and the Last Man, critiquing Marxism in terms of the Anglo-Saxon expansion, again by peaceful means.
Of course, lots have changed since, so all bets are off. Still, the recent Cameron venture with respect to India is from that very playbook.
And so here’s my question: Aren’t you prejudiced perhaps by your free Irish spirit - good for you, BTW - to be challenging the British claim to supremacy and world domination? And if so, you should perhaps refocus your attention on America, not only because Britain is past its prime but more importantly perhaps, because we are the spitting image, only that we’re artless at it, like a bull in a china shop. And we still suffer from hubris, the idea we can do it all alone.
Well, the Brits have always had more sense than that. And whatever they thought, they didn’t always say. Got to give ‘em credit for that.
5 - jeannie danna
Roger,
"Human beings are malleable in a way that goods such as apples are not."
Reading your link
I watched a documentary today called, The corporation
Have you and Cindy already seen it? If not, you'll both like it.
6 - Ruvy
I read your article, Roger, and you did a nice job. But what the British could offer India is beyond me - aside from 50 rupee boxes of Kelloggs's Cornflakes. I would think the Indians would be intelligent enough to send the Brits packing. Didn't they have enough of British arrogance when they ruled (or misruled) the Indian Empire?
7 - Ruvy
Of course, now that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, will the Brits be able to stomach Indian arrogance and self-righteousness?
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
I really enjoyed your article - it's not often I see something so unexpected yet IMO probably beneficial. While I still think that Europe has a great part to play in humanity's future (for instance, the world's preeminent scientific research facility, CERN), if England succeeds in drawing herself closer to the subcontinent, I think she'll do quite well - after all, it's not without reason that the largest democracy on the planet is often referred to as "the next China".
9 - roger nowosielski
Thanks for the kind comments, Glenn.
I'm rather surprised that our English-Aussie contingent haven't chimed in. I should think it would be down their alley. But you know how some of us are. We'll all about critiquing, and we surely live up to that reputation. We are blogcritics first and foremost.
10 - Dr Dreadful
I'm rather snowed under for the foreseeable future, Roger - I'm even struggling to keep up with the news, so I hadn't heard of this development until I read your article - so unfortunately you won't be seeing much of me here for a while.
I'll just remark that eschewing Europe in favour of one of our former colonial "possessions" is exactly the sort of thing a Conservative prime minister - especially an Eton-educated one - would be likely to do.
11 - roger nowosielski
Shoot, Dreaduful, you're not in Himalayas now? Say it isn't so.
12 - roger nowosielski
Thanks for your comments, Ruv. I'd like to think that fall from grace - excuse the Catholic jargon, tends to make people and nations more humble. So perhaps Britain has given up on her imperialistic ambitions and is just trying to survive. And if that's the case, then it's all to the good.
No such hopes for America yet, not in the immediate future. We're just as arrogant and cocky as ever. Perhaps we need to get our arse kicked, and good, before we come down to earth. Which is precisely the reason why our solutions are no solutions at all. They only perpetuate the hubris.
13 - STM
Roger, there's one word that is key to all this.
That word is: Commonwealth.
The links are so strong, they will never be broken. The Indians are used to dealing with Britain and have been doing so for over 200 years.
What Cameron is doing is nothing new for a British PM, although he's making the Indians understand that he's in their camp.
The reason Britain remains such a powerful influence globally is because she doesn't - as you've explained here - throw all her eggs in one basket.
Most of the world's financial transactions take place in London and New York, so it makes sense for the British to capitalise on their position.
Interestingly, Australia is currently signing coal deals with India.
But if you thought it was all about politics and business and money, you'd be wrong.
Nah, it's also about who you play cricket with.
Which puts the US behind the 8-ball immediately.
Baseball just doesn't have the same cachet.
14 - STM
Yeah Doc, where are you and why are you snowed under??
15 - STM
That's not a joke, either Rog, about the cricket ... Americans would be surprised by the clout it has in these countries.
Indians are absolute fanatics and it does spill over into the political arean, for good or ill. A controversy in a cricket Test match can lead to calls for the ending of diplomatic relations. Seriously ...
And in Australia, the most important job in the country is not Prime Minisiter.
It's the captain of the Australian Test cricket team.
I realise it might be hard to Americans to understand this aspect of Commonwealth relations - the same way they didn't understand the KFC ad furore during the West Indies/Australia cricket series this year - but it does give us all very, very strong links.
16 - Dr Dreadful
Indians are absolute fanatics and it does spill over into the political arean
Freudian typo, Stan? ;-)
17 - roger nowosielski
"Nah, it's also about who you play cricket with."
Cricket or billiards, and gin fizz besides to deal with the weather. So yes, there is a connection.
"Commonwealth" may be just the term to describe it. Interestingly, the natives are more for it than against it. Anyway, it would be interesting to see what develops. The odds are good.
Dreadful remarked that the idea has always been there in the British psyche. Whether he's right or not, it's surely the right kind of move.
18 - Dr Dreadful
Yeah Doc, where are you and why are you snowed under??
I'm doing an accelerated BA in English, online. One class a month for the next couple of years, if I go at it hammer and tongs. I estimate it'll take up 60-80% of my free time - so any commenting I do is going to be sporadic.
I'll still be comment editing, though, so don't think I'm not watching all you lot! ;-)
19 - zingzing
stm: "I realise it might be hard to Americans to understand this aspect of Commonwealth relations"
well, it does come off a bit juvenile. not that american politics has any claim to maturity...
"the same way [the americans] didn't understand the KFC ad furore during the West Indies/Australia cricket series this year."
unfortunately for kfc, they also didn't understand that americans were going to see that. it's not their fault that fried chicken is a racial stereotype in america, but damn... they have to be smarter than that. for an american company to greenlight that advertising treatment... well, it's just amazingly stupid. i hope that their corporate structure had something to do with that. maybe the american branches of kfc never saw that. still, what makes sense and comes off innocent in one area of the world is going to be seen and misunderstood (or not) in another part. hopefully, they learned their lesson, whether it was justified or not.
20 - roger nowosielski
Shoot, Dreadful. Aren't there any decent institutions of higher learning? How about Fresno State, if there is such a thing?
You're missing all the fun of it by not being part of live discussion, the usual give and take.
21 - STM
Doc: "arean"
Needs a Y for that.
22 - STM
Besides which, Indians ARE Aryans.
23 - Dr Dreadful
Stan: I know. That's why I wondered! :-)
Rog: There is a Fresno State (in fact it's right across the street from my house), but the bugger is juggling a traditional program of study, wherein most classes are held during the day, with a full-time job.
This way, I get to dictate my own program, and get done much quicker than with an on-the-ground university.
And, because there are discussion boards which work in a similar way, there is as much give-and-take with the online program as there is here on BC.
24 - STM
[edited]
Roger: "Commonwealth" may be just the term to describe it.
Lol. Perhaps a little knowledge is a bad thing on this issue.
No Rog, that's actually what it's called. "The Commonwealth" is the grouping of nations that were part of the British Empire.
The Commonwealth is an organisation.
Which might go a hell of a long way to explaining whay Britain and India are doing business ... the same as they have for the past 300 years.
The most recent link I can think of is the sale of Jaguar to Tata, the Indian motor company. The cars, however, are still being designed and built in Britain.
None of this is really new. It's just that Cameron (and the new Government) is marking out some territory like the new dog on the block.
25 - STM
As an example: Britain is currently I believe India's fifth largest trading partner, and India is Australia's fourth largest trading partner (behind China, Japan and North Korea).
These countries are already considerable benefactors to the other's economies.