THE LIMITS OF POWER

It is becoming clear that a handicap afflicting the great Powers of today, the USA, Russia, China and The European Union, is an inability to recognize the limits of their strength and authority. Recent older Powers like the UK and France learnt this lesson the hard way and Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897 was celebrated in Recessional with Kipling’s wry lines:

Far-called our navies melt away;
  On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
  Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The world craves equilibrium, what the 19^th century called “the balance of power”. No one Power can become dominant, while their collective need basically to cooperate with each other creates a stability helpful to all the other nations in the world. This idealised state of affairs has recently come unstuck and the different reasons for this are worth exploring.

The USA was created under her unique 1776 Constitution which conferred equality to every citizen and powerful rights to every state in the Union. An attempt to secede from the Union by a group of Southern states in 1861 precipitated a ferocious Civil War. Over the years the Federal central authority has strengthened but States Rights remains a populist rallying cry. Notions of Manifest Destiny and The American Dream are rather passé these days, and despite decisive contributions to both World Wars, the old cohesion of the (white) US population weakens in the face of unsuccessful wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, acute racial tensions and the divisive rhetoric of politicians like Donald Trump.

                                 US divisions still apparent after 157 years

We Brits mostly believe that the US is a vital power for good and are dismayed by the poor leadership shown by ga-ga Joe Biden. He has blundered on Ukraine and we can only hope his successor is fit for the job. Acting as the world’s policeman is a thankless task and a broadly supportive home electorate is an important pre-requisite. The military might of nuclear USA is unrivalled and it must not fall under the influence of diehard generals or a “woke” Leftist Congress.

America’s only rival in firepower is Russia. After many convulsions, Putin brought some stability and relative prosperity to his country bolstered by her enviable natural resources. Yet Putin has chosen a highly assertive foreign policy and he chafes at what he sees as a humiliation imposed by the West involving the break-up of the Stalinist USSR or traditional Tsarist Empire. His complaints are fanciful as the old Russian autocracies had lost the consent of the Russian and her subject peoples.

In launching her wild, unprovoked assault on Ukraine Putin has condemned Russia to global condemnation. It is so retrograde a measure that Russia’s reputation will take generations to recover. The conduct of the Russian forces and their bestial treatment of civilians puts their country beyond the Pale of civilised inter-reaction. Quite contrary to Putin’s expectations it has united Europe against him, provoked a drastic programme of sanctions and stimulated Ukrainians to an effective and heroic defence. What insane impulse has propelled Putin into this calamitous course of action?  Putin’s War is a throwback to the 17^th century, when, as Samuel Butler tells us, the leaders:

Decide all Controversies by
Infallible Artillery;

Thankfully we have come a long way since then and surely Russia’s leaders will face capital criminal charges when the dust has settled, as we see the appalling carnage and suffering they have unleashed.

                

       How Russia treats her neighbours

Putin’s attack on Ukraine simply underlines the truth of Lord Acton’s dictum:

All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Even more of an enigma to the Western mind is the position of China. By weight of population ancient China deserves to be a leading Power but failed to compete from the 19^th century onwards. Communist ideology, as propounded by Mao Zedong, held back China until the regimes dominated by Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s opened up to the world with a policy of “market socialism”. Modern China is now immensely prosperous and a key manufacturer. Her huge investments in resources in Africa and elsewhere make her an indispensable partner for the West. More ominously, her investment in Western educational establishments, including Oxbridge colleges, gives her real influence.

China remains a communist dictatorship, with dissidents suppressed and persecuted. The territory of China is widely recognised but there are flashpoints. China claims Taiwan, currently independent and democratically governed but once, from 1949 to 1975, the bolt-hole of deposed Chinese autocrat Chiang Kai Shek. Before that it was part of the Japanese Empire from 1895 to 1945. Taiwan has many economic friends in East Asia and the USA. Any attempt by China to seize and occupy Taiwan would be fiercely resisted – and events in Ukraine may give China pause. A military operation would be perilous and a diplomatic solution would be the sensible way through. Similarly, China has aggressively claimed much of the South China Sea, building bases, clashing with the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia who also have interests there. No doubt some agreement could be cobbled up, but China plays a long game. China made many promises about the autonomy of Hong Kong when it was handed back by the UK in 1997, but these promises have been broken with the suppression of anti-Chinese opposition on the territory. Whether China would ever properly abide by a treaty on Taiwan or the South China Sea is a moot point.

               
   President Xi Jinping runs an unpredictable nation

China was once the junior partner in the Sino-Soviet relationship. With China’s economic strength and Russia’s rapid demographic decline, the roles are reversed. The Tsarist nightmare of a takeover by “The Yellow Horde” may be realized in years to come. And yet…..some commentators believe China is a “paper tiger”, far less dangerous and single-minded than its propaganda claims and that its military might is quite unproven. Most of us prefer not to test that theory and to let sleeping dogs lie.

The 4th power bloc is the European Union comprising 27 nations, most with a long and distinguished history. The 6 EEC founder-members who signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957 pledged to move towards political integration, but that was fanciful for many years. Later however it became clear that an expanded EU needed more centralised and efficient powers and independent sovereignty became eroded. Britain, a member since 1973, did not like the direction of travel and left the EU in 2020 after a narrow referendum vote in 2016.

France, Germany, Italy and Spain are the dominant members, with a secretariat in Brussels, Belgium. Generally, the EU has been economically successful although recent crises have slowed growth. It is protectionist by instinct and its approach to problems is legalistic and “rules-based” – not much scope for dynamic originality. It is fair to say that getting 27 nations to agree on substantial matters is a huge burden and sometimes the EU sounds like a dissonant Tower of Babel. The cultural division between the original founding 6, the Scandinavians, the Baltics, the Slav Central and Eastern Europeans and the Eastern Mediterranean states is very apparent. Amazingly the 27 have managed to speak with one voice in the face of the Russian war on Ukraine, but the exposed position of dissident Poland and the luke-warm adherence of Hungary means that reform of its constitution is necessary. One size does not fit all! Movement on such matters is very laboured and the EU could easily do too little too late. The EU’s lack of its own army is a long-term problem and some say the UK missed an historic opportunity in leaving rather than leading the EU. I disagree – the gulf between the UK’s and the EU’s mentality and world-view was simply too wide.

Kenneth Clark helped us to recognize “Civilisation” when we saw it

Creating world security cannot depend on the United Nations where Russia and China have an over-arching veto. Statesmen of a new generation have to institute political change to light and cherish the torches of democracy and civilisation and protect mankind.

 

SMD

6.04.22

Text copyright © Sidney Donald 2022