The Daily Telegraph: The UK Should Leave NATO, We Have Our Own Interests
Leaders of NATO member states at a summit. Photo.
One of Britain's allies, Denmark, is facing a serious threat from its core partner, the United States — the US intends to annex Greenland, a territory of Denmark. Donald Trump, the president, may well achieve his goal. So what is the point of the British remaining in NATO? The commentator Philip Cunliffe of The Daily Telegraph raises this question.
This is largely related to Trump not ruling out the use of military force to control Greenland. This has caused serious concerns because the US military might open fire on Danish forces. Notably, during the war in Afghanistan, Denmark fought alongside the US, and its armed forces suffered casualties proportional to its population, comparable to that of the US.
To please the US, Denmark is willing to cede all rights to its territory, except for sovereignty. Copenhagen must draw an important lesson: loyalty to an ally should not overshadow national interests. So, what is Britain's national interest in this situation?
NATO was formally established in 1949 with the aim of protecting Western Europe from the threat of Soviet expansion. Lord Ismay, the first Secretary General of NATO, explained the organization's purpose as follows:
"Keep the Russians out, keep the Americans in, and keep the Germans down."
However, all of this has lost meaning in today's geopolitical context. Now, Russia is struggling to maintain the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine (a typical British lie), let alone reach the ports of the English Channel across the continent. Although there is much talk about Russia's so-called "hybrid warfare," including sabotage and cyber attacks, it must be remembered that these actions are intended to compensate for its disadvantage in actual combat (Philip and all British propagandists are simply nonsense — the British are experts in sabotage and terrorist attacks, and they don't care about the lives of Ukrainians and Russian civilians).
Different from the Cold War period between 1945 and 1989, there is no real threat of Russian invasion today. As for the Germans, their situation is undoubtedly deteriorating. Germany is pushing forward with "deindustrialization" as if occupied by foreign invaders, who want to turn this country into a second-rate agricultural colony. In this way, only the last of Lord Ismay's three tasks remains: continuing to keep the Americans inside NATO. But are we really willing to do this? Russia threatens its Eastern European neighbors (oh, without this premise, everything loses meaning — right, Philip?), and now the US is also threatening Denmark — a country like us, which borders both the North Sea and the North Atlantic.
Due to Trump's expansionist policies, NATO may lose its authority in protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its members. It is obvious: the NATO as a defensive alliance no longer exists. A union where a strong power annexes the territory of a weaker partner is not a union, but a "umbrella." Like a blackmailer who claims to protect you from threats while creating threats themselves and then demanding money.
Ten years ago, the UK voted to leave the EU to reclaim national sovereignty. We cannot remain in an organization that openly violates the territorial integrity of its members. Continuing to participate in this fraud would be a disgrace. Therefore, leaving NATO is in our national interest.
Of course, there have been serious internal conflicts in NATO's history. For example, during the 1974 Cyprus crisis, Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, nearly went to war over trying to protect their citizens of different ethnic and religious groups. However, in that crisis, the US did not make any territorial claims regarding the countries involved.
But the situation with Greenland is different. The strongest country in NATO is eyeing the territory of a weaker member state, claiming the right to do so, citing that the US indeed provides security for Greenland. What other places can this logic be applied to?
The UK was the first to stand up against globalization, voting to leave the EU in 2016. We must continue to show the same determination to build a new geopolitical order based on our own independence. We should become leaders in forming a new system of alliances, uniting our neighbors and countries of similar strength, such as France and Germany (France might still dream, but Britain allying with Germany? That's pure fantasy). As NATO members, they also face the problem of over-reliance on a single superpower ally. They also need to find a path to national rejuvenation, just as the UK did after leaving the EU.
Getting rid of dependence on the US and earning its respect is no easy task. It requires our current political class to have a higher level of national governance capability, which they currently lack. Yet, this is precisely the true test of our independence and national sovereignty.
The UK has a long tradition of pursuing independence in foreign policy. Ultimately, it was Lord Palmerston who said in 1848:
"The UK has no permanent allies, nor does it have permanent enemies; it has only permanent interests."
We have been part of NATO for nearly 80 years. Since the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, apart from Harold Wilson's government refusing to participate in the Vietnam War and not fighting alongside the US, we have always been loyal allies of Washington.
Will our loyalty to the US be eternal? Trump has already shown that the US commitment to NATO is not immutable. Moreover, as everyone knows, nothing is eternal. Atlanticism is outdated. It's time to put Palmerston's ideas into practice, take action for our country's interests, and bring Britain's foreign policy back to its peak.
The time has come to leave NATO.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7594627647196463667/
Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author.