top of page
Handshake

News & Commentary for the Digital UK

Welcome

BREXIT could arguably be vindicated by the notion that French hero General Charles de Gaulle admitted he would not have signed the treaty that took his nation into the EU's precursor, the EEC

Brexit has divided opinion in the UK for almost a decade and rows over the country’s relationship with the EU will likely rumble on for many years to come. But the wider debate about Britain’s links to the bloc is not unique to the 21st century, as the arguments stretch back almost 70 years. The perception today may well be that the Brussels project is backed most whole-heartedly by the EU’s two biggest economies, France and Germany. This has not always been the case, though.


As explored by Philip Stevens in ‘Britain Alone: The Path from Suez to Brexit’, the French in particular were uneasy when the foundations of the bloc first came into being as the EEC – the European Economic Community.

The Financial Times journalist writes: “While the impulse towards Franco-German rapprochement was powerful, it was far from inevitable that European integration would take the form that finally emerged.

“France shared many of the British concerns about sovereignty.”


And he went further still as he explained how General de Gaulle, who was not French President at the time of the Messina Conference as the Treaty of Rome was drafted, would not have signed the agreement his predecessor, René Coty, did.

Mr Stevens continued: “de Gaulle, who returned to power following the Messina conference, later confessed that had he been President during the drafting of the Treaty of Rome, he would have refused to sign it.

“France initially prioritised security over economic cooperation and pressed for a new agency to pool the continent's nuclear capabilities.

“For its part, West Germany wanted tariff-free trade in manufactures and resisted French plans for the Common Agricultural Policy.”

Had this come to pass, France – like Britain – would not have been a signatory to the Treaty of Rome and therefore not a founder member of what went on to become the EU.

Mr Stevens’ point highlights the fragility of history and how, with the small matter of France having a different leader in the mid-Fifties, the face of Britain and Europe as we know it could be fundamentally different.


As it happens, France was a founding member of the EEC and Britain later joined in 1973 – but not before General de Gaulle said “non” to two British applications.

General de Gaulle – who served as President of France from 1959 to 1969 – rejected two Prime Ministers: Tory Harold Macmillan and Labour’s Harold Wilson.

And a statement issued on behalf of the French government in 1967 may appear profoundly prophetic to Brexiteers today.

It reads: “Compared with the motives that led the six [founder nations] to organise their unit, we understand for what reasons, why Britain – who is not continental, who remains, because of the Commonwealth and because she is an island, committed far beyond the seas, who is tied to the United States by all kinds of special agreements – did not merge into a Community with set dimensions and set rules.”

General de Gaulle echoed the sentiments expressed by Tony Benn decades later, in pointing out that Britain benefited from inexpensive imports from the Commonwealth and, conversely, would be “forced to raise the price of her food” if the country “submitted to the rules of the six” EEC member states at the time.


The statement continued: “Britain nourishes herself, to a great extent, on food-stuffs bought inexpensively throughout the world and, particularly, in the Commonwealth.

“If she submits to the rules of the six, then her balance of payments will be crushed by ‘levies’ and, on the other hand, she would then be forced to raise the price of her food to the price level adopted by the continental countries, consequently to increase the wages of her workers and, thereby, to sell her goods all the more at a higher price and with more difficulty.”

Finally, he pointed out that Britain would be “isolated” within the EEC’s “costly regime” and asked: “How can it not be seen that the very situation of the pound sterling prevents the Common Market from incorporating Britain?”

The French Journal of British Studies notes that there were many on the other side of the Channel who agreed with his analysis.

In 1951, the Labour Party’s “European Unity” pamphlet argued that: “In every respect except distance, we in Britain are closer to our kinsmen in Australia and New Zealand on the far side of the world, than we are to Europe.”

Nevertheless, Edward Heath successfully negotiated Britain’s entry into the EEC in 1972 and, on January 1, 1973, Britain officially joined the bloc.

However, during the 1975 referendum on Britain’s entry, General de Gaulle’s comments were to resurface.

During a debate with fellow Labour MP Roy Jenkins, passionate eurosceptic Tony Benn argued that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was a “siege economy” designed to favour the French and harm Britain.

Regarding the surge in food prices, he added: “We have butter mountains and beef mountains because the Common Agricultural Policy was developed to benefit the French and if you read [Charles] de Gaulle’s famous veto speech, he said the CAP would be a crushing burden on the British economy.

“He never thought that Mr Heath would go on his knees and accept it.”

Britain’s unease with Brussels, as General de Gaulle arguably predicted, never truly subsided.

When the British people were asked about their country’s place in the EU for the second time in just over 40 years, in 2016, the result was a clear Leave majority.

Philip Stevens' Britain Alone: The Path From Suez to Brexit was published by Faber and Faber in 2021. It is available here.


Source: Express



Writer's pictureThe Thatch

Imagine for a moment that Cuba picked the next Pope. That is the scenario which Lobsang Sangay, the then-Sikyong (the Tibetan government-in-exile’s head of state), asked the world to consider several years ago in light of growing concerns that the Chinese Communist party (CCP) would seek to select the next Dalai Lama. Now such a possibility – that Beijing will attempt to impose their own man at the top of Tibetan Buddhism – seems increasingly plausible.

Last week, China’s State Council issued a white paper on Tibet to mark 70 years since the signing of the Seventeen Point Agreement, which incorporated Tibet into the People’s Republic of China. The title of the document – ‘Tibet since 1951: Liberation, development and prosperity’ – makes it all too clear this is CCP propaganda at its worst. It attempts to rewrite history by failing to acknowledge that this agreement was signed under duress. It also ignores the fact that Beijing has not upheld its promises to grant the Tibetan people autonomy, in particular the right to practice their own religion free from interference.

Over the past seven decades, the CCP has attempt to both destroy and, failing that, control Tibetan Buddhism. At the heart of this is the campaign of vilification against the Dalai Lama. Those who continue to revere His Holiness, by keeping portraits of him in their homes or celebrating his birthday, find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Monks, too, find themselves under heavy surveillance and subject to Communist party indoctrination.


Getty Images

But these campaigns are not enough for the CPP, which – as the white paper sets out – are clearly planning to legitimise Beijing’s role in the succession of the Dalai Lama. The paper seeks to establish a precedent that selection of Tibetan Buddhism’s top job has, since the Qing Empire, been subject to the approval of China’s central government. Leaving aside the fact that this version of history is disputed, and that the position of Dalai Lama long predates the Qing, such a claim is yet another pretext for a state-sponsored stitch up.

Last year, Zhao Lijian, who serves as China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, insisted that the issue of succession was a purely internal matter. In the same press conference, Zhao said that any reincarnation must follow Chinese laws and regulations.

He is not joking. In 2007, Beijing issued Order No.5 which introduced an application process for the reincarnation of living Buddhas. This provides the legal basis for Beijing to claim that selecting spiritual leaders should formally lie in the hands of the state. If the Chinese government pushes through this plan to install a stooge Dalai Lama, it would only further cement their control over Tibetan Buddhism (not to mention be an outrageous assault on freedom of religion).

The move is also designed to remove an influential critic of the Chinese regime from the world stage. Although the current Dalai Lama has clearly pre-empted it by telling his followers that his successor will probably be born outside of Tibet, giving the fact he is living in exile in India.

What seems all too likely is that in the near future we may have a case of two competing claims to leadership of Tibetan Buddhism. The British government, alongside others in Europe, have already stated that the process of succession is a religious matter, for religious authorities, but they could go further by categorically ruling out recognition for a Dalai Lama handpicked by Beijing. They could also, as the United States has done with its Tibetan Policy and Support Act, commit to sanctioning CCP officials who interfere in the selection process. This would confer legitimacy on the successor picked by Tibetans and their spiritual leaders in exile.

Of course, while these moves are being made there is nothing to stop Boris Johnson reaching out to the current Dalai Lama and engaging in dialogue as many of his predecessors have done. Nothing that is except for the fear of Beijing’s wrath.


Source: Spectator Australia

Writer's pictureThe Thatch

On 16th May, the assault on Gaza may be Palestine’s Sharpeville massacre. It may well trigger the beginning of the end of Israeli apartheid.


In 2019, I wrote a piece for Al Jazeera, in which I reiterated that we, Palestinians of Gaza, have already made our choice. I wrote: “We will not die a slow and dishonourable death while thanking our killers and labouring under the self-deception that portrays slavery to the occupier as a fait accompli.” Our struggle is non-sectarian, one that is enshrined in the basic principles of the International Declaration on Human Rights, no matter how hard the hypocritical Western media tries to conceal the truth.

And now apartheid Israel has decided to launch yet another murderous campaign of bombardment against one of the most densely populated areas on earth, the Gaza Strip. Again, the victims include innocent civilians: children, women, and men. Some 200 Palestinians have been killed, including 40 children. On May 15, dozens of Palestinians were massacred in Al Wehda Street in downtown Gaza City alone.



Mourners pray over bodies of 17 Palestinians killed in Israeli air raids in Gaza City May 16, 2021 [AP/Sanad Latifa]

Medical staff have also not been spared. On May 16, Dr Ayman Abu Alouf, head of the internal medicine department of the Al-Shifa Medical Complex, was killed along with most of his family.

With American-made F-16 fighter jets, Israel has bombed and flattened dozens of residential buildings and hundreds of homes.

Ambulance and civil defence crews have been attempting for days now to retrieve Palestinians who have been buried by rubble, some using their mobile phones to call for help before taking their last breaths.

The message is very clear to us – it is civilians that Israel is after!

Once again, apartheid Israel has deployed its longstanding Dahiya doctrine – a blueprint for massacre and devastation outlined by Gadi Eisenkot, head of the army’s northern division, after the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon.

Having decimated the Dahiya neighbourhood of Beirut with a vicious 34-day air bombardment, Eisenkot declared that “What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on … From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases.”

In other words, every resident of Gaza, even a day-old baby, is a legitimate military target for Israel.

The ultimate goal of the Israelis is to brutalise Palestinians into submission, into giving up any resistance, any claim to their own land. As former Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon said in 2002, for the Israeli army victory would be “sear[ing] into the Palestinian and Arab consciousness” that “terrorism and violence (read: resistance) will not defeat us”.

As with previous massacres, this time once again Israel and the Palestinians – the oppressor and the oppressed – are equated as “two sides to a conflict” and what constitutes legitimate resistance under international law is put on the same level as a brutal illegal occupation. US President Joe Biden says apartheid Israel has the right to defend itself. The fact that Israel has an actual army, disproportionately greater firepower and is an occupier is neglected as usual, as is the stark difference in the death toll. Biden, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel and other Western leaders and their “house Arabs” are just incapable of seeing the humanity of Palestinians.


Despite all the evidence, they reject recognising that this is an occupation, launched by a settler-colonial power that seeks to ethnically cleanse an entire indigenous population in order to solidify and legitimise its colony. What is happening in Gaza is incremental genocide, not a “security operation”. And yet Palestinians are being asked to give in to a slow death, die aimlessly, showing no form of rebellion, and accept that if they die resisting, then it would be their own fault.

The question that is on Palestinian minds is: Why is this allowed to happen, 27 years after the fall of the apartheid regime of South Africa? We know why Israel is doing it – we are the unwanted goyim, the refugees whose very existence is a constant reminder of the original sin committed in 1948, the premeditated crime of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. It is worth mentioning that two-thirds of Gaza residents are refugees entitled to their right of return as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

In Gaza, we know that Israel is going to get away with it, simply because it has never been held to account for any of the massacres it has committed. We also know that it is going to commit more and worse crimes. The United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League, the so-called “international community” at large, have failed the Palestinian people and will continue to do so.

The question is: What more do people who love freedom need to see in terms of death and destruction to translate their words of support into action? What more than the dead bodies of hundreds of Palestinian children? No child, whether Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or of any other religion should see what Palestinian children are seeing right now.

Palestinians will no longer accept the dictates of the so-called “international community” which continues to favour Israel and cover up its war crimes. In the light of the great sacrifices made by our people, any talk of merely improving the conditions of our oppression is a betrayal of the Palestinian victims of Israeli war crimes.

We do not want crumbs. We want to return to our lands and we want to live in them with our full rights under international law.

It is the ethical responsibility of every single person who believes in freedom for all to make sure that genocide and apartheid do not happen again.

This is why we say now that Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel is the responsibility not only of civil society organisations, but of every single individual. This is what we can all do. We can boycott Israeli goods and Israeli institutions, divest from Israeli businesses and demand sanctions on the Israeli government.

If we do so together and in solidarity, only then will Israel start to reconsider what it has done to the Palestinians.

Gaza could be the spark that initiates a different Palestine between the Jordan River and Mediterranean in the heart of the Middle East. The current uprising in the West Bank and Palestinian towns in Israel could be the birth pangs of a new reality characterised by the end of the racist two-state solution and the establishment of a secular democratic state on the historic land of Palestine, an inclusive state like South Africa.

Let the Gaza war in 2009 be like South Africa’s 1960 Sharpeville massacre, in which white apartheid police opened fire on unarmed Black protesters, triggering a movement that brought down apartheid. Let the 2021 massacre in Gaza be the beginning of a new, more democratic Middle East, with a secular, democratic state of Palestine that treats all its citizens equally, regardless of religion, race, and gender.


Haidar Eid is an associate Professor at Al-Aqsa University in Gaza.

Source: Al Jazeera


The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Blog
bottom of page