Wednesday, 19 November 2003


Under Tony Blair, the UK has initially sought to pursue an 'ethical foreign policy'. We supported then US president Clinton in bombing the former Yugoslavia. Since September 11th 2001, we have aided current US president Bush in attacking Afghanistan, Iraq and have engaged in the 'war on terror'.

The United States may be the 'global policeman'; after all it is the world's superpower. The United Kingdom on the other hand is NOT a superpower. Yes, we may possess one of the world's largest economies, we may have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, we may be a member of the G8 and we may possess one of the world's best respected armed forces. Nonetheless, Britain has not been viewed as a major world power since the end of the Second World War.

A nation of the UK's 'standing' in the world does not warrant such an extensive foreign policy. Other nations of equal economic and military prowess, such as France and Germany, refrain from taking an active role in the world. Isn't it possible that such interventionism can create resentment? Who is Tony Blair to make British citizens potential targets for terrorists?

Simply, the UK doesn't NEED an interventionist foreign policy. Other events around the world are none of our business. We are blessed by being in prixomity to friendly nations (many of whom are our NATO allies and fellow EU members). In addition, we are an island nation. Hitler couldn't invade us during WWII as Germany lacked a substantial navy. ANY nation which seeks to attack us MUST have adequate naval strength. We also are one of the principle nuclear powers of the world. MAD ( ,i.e. mutually assured destruction) would provide for our safety if another nations seeks to attack us with nuclear weapons.