Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 13

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 13 · UK Column Radio

0:38
Charles, before we started recording, you were just telling
0:42
me the differences now between consulate what High Commission
0:45
and embassy. That's really interesting.
0:47
Just quickly go through None. that.
1:06
The distinct, the, the fundamental distinction is that
1:09
a Commonwealth country will have what we call a High Commission,
1:12
a British High Commission and therefore a High Commissioner.
1:15
Whereas a non Commonwealth country will have a an embassy.
1:19
And then a consulate will be a sort of smaller enterprise that
1:23
doesn't have a diplomatic or at least a, not a sort of, I
1:27
suppose, Tier 1 diplomatic capability.
1:30
And therefore would be a, would be a, a processing place for
1:34
visas and passports and, and that kind of thing.
1:36
And I think for me, I, you know, what we were talking about just
1:39
before we started recording was that I haven't, I've, I spent
1:42
some time, Naomi, working on what was called ironically,
1:45
defence diplomacy. I mean, it's, that's sort of not
1:48
as funny as it sounds because that it is absolutely a thing.
1:51
And this is part of what's, you know, what gets described as
1:56
soft power. And there are so many ways in
2:01
which soft power plays out and and sort of is deployed.
2:05
But I think my OK, I wasn't there.
2:07
But my feeling on it is that in fact, as time has passed since
2:16
countries became independent from the British Empire, and I
2:20
will just pause here to say that I'm not advocating for the
2:25
continuation of an empire as it was.
2:28
What I am trying to set out is a case by which from the outside
2:34
or or at least partially from the inside, in the time that I
2:37
was there, it seems that the British have really lost lost a
2:42
grip on how to relate to other countries that that you know.
2:47
And of course we can go through all the terrible wrongs of the
2:51
past and all that nonsense that gets exploited now for all sorts
2:55
of gain on on both sides. But I think what I really mean
2:58
is that the, even the Commonwealth, I, I think that
3:04
the United Kingdom doesn't behave in a, in a properly
3:08
interested fashion towards those sorts of countries.
3:11
And I, and I think that's a, that's a massive mistake.
3:13
And say the defence diplomacy thing, which I basically means
3:17
that in some way there's a relationship between the Foreign
3:21
Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of
3:23
Defence. In order that there's a British
3:27
military presence in a particular country, there always
3:30
is via the defence attache or military attache or whatever,
3:32
whatever he or she is is called. But in addition to that, there
3:36
might be a team that that's loosely attached to a High
3:39
Commission, usually because this is less so in countries where
3:44
where there isn't a Commonwealth connection, but, but that
3:48
involves liaison with the host nation armed forces and
3:52
therefore the projection of what is described as soft power via
3:57
training or, you know, sharing of information and, and this,
4:01
that and the other. And it's, you know, you can see
4:06
how this comes into play. I mean, my experience of it was
4:09
in mostly Eastern, but a little bit Southern Africa.
4:13
And it's, it's evolved absolutely for sure.
4:18
But I think also even in that arena, they've, they've lost,
4:22
lost grip and, and also it's a very competitive space.
4:24
And I saw this, you know, I'm going back nearly 20 years now,
4:27
but I saw this, the, the competition between particularly
4:33
the United States and in fact, funnily enough, the Nordic
4:36
countries in terms of presenting the greatest offerings to these
4:44
nations in order that you would secure particular concessions to
4:51
be able to do whatever it is. And then, and then if you do
4:54
then go and look at, as I say, in my experience, Eastern
4:57
Africa, what happened, particularly in Djibouti was
5:00
very interesting, which was the Americans first sort of foot on
5:05
the ground was the camp that they put in Djibouti.
5:08
And then you look at how all the, the port infrastructure
5:11
has, has sort of developed in, in that region around the Horn
5:15
of Africa and all the rest of it.
5:16
So it's, it's a big topic, but it, but it goes back to this,
5:20
the idea that in some way, you know, the Commonwealth is
5:23
special. And of course, the, you know,
5:24
the one anomaly, the significant anomaly, it's not the only
5:28
anomaly, but the, but the one very significant anomaly, of
5:31
course, is that Rwanda became part of the Commonwealth, having
5:34
not previously been part of, you know, what one might describe as
5:37
the Empire. So anyway, we could go on.
5:39
But but yeah, it's just, it's just an interesting, an
5:43
interesting point. And I think like so many things,
5:47
it's easy just to gloss over the what seemed like not terribly
5:52
significant distinctions, but I think I think they are
5:56
significant, but perhaps not so much in the way that they that
6:01
they necessarily should be. But you, you were just talking
6:03
about, you know, South Africa's relationship with the United
6:06
Kingdom on that front. And sort of, you know, how well
6:10
actually I'd, I'd be really interested to know now,
6:12
particularly given South Africa's stance on Israel, how
6:15
do you think relations are between South Africa and the
6:20
United Kingdom? No, they're not as good as they
6:23
used to be, but our relations with most Western countries
6:26
appears to be deteriorating. I, I, I would like to just jump
6:31
in here German for May and say I need to just challenge a couple
6:34
of things that that Charles said there.
6:39
My first question is, did the British Empire end?
6:43
And I would argue that it didn't, that it just changed
6:47
into something different. And I mean, one analogy or one
6:50
comparison we might use. This is the Roman Empire, for
6:54
example, which was very much a military operation until it
6:58
morphed into the Roman Catholic Church and suddenly it became a
7:01
soft power operation instead. And I, I would draw some
7:05
parallels there. But the other thing that I would
7:07
just say is that that I don't think we should ignore the, the
7:13
wrongs in inverted commas of the British Empire.
7:17
I think we should look actually a lot closer at those than
7:19
perhaps we're willing to. And that is because the, the
7:24
actual modus operandi of that of the empire, as it was
7:29
particularly in the late 1930 twenties, well, in the 19th
7:33
century, let's say mid to late 19th century, we see the same
7:37
types of, of act of activities, the same types of manipulations
7:43
being used then as we see today. And actually to get an
7:47
understanding of, I would argue to get an understanding of, of
7:51
the types of things, activities that we see from the so called
7:54
deep state, which is an expression of empire, that, that
8:00
we need to be actually looking very closely at what the, the
8:03
British Empire did and how it maintained it's influence in, in
8:09
certain countries. If we look at Palestine, if we
8:12
look at India or we look at Ireland, for example, just to
8:15
give 3 examples, we see the same types of behaviours in each of
8:19
those theatres and, and we see the same types of behaviours
8:23
from certain factions today. And, and I think that would help
8:29
us actually understand what's happening to us now because we
8:34
are actually on the receiving end of that.
8:37
I'm talking about the British people, Europeans, United
8:39
States. I don't know so much about South
8:42
Africa, but certainly we are on the receiving, receiving end of
8:45
the same type of manipulations. And I think there's value in, in
8:49
being a bit more a bit objective for trying to separate ourselves
8:56
from, from what we might see as as not quite sure how to put
9:01
this, but some, some kind of of loyalty to, to Britain as it was
9:07
at that time. I'd be interested in Charles's
9:10
rebuttal of that. Yeah, well, I mean good
9:15
challenge and I think it is very important to to have challenge
9:21
and and to thrash this stuff out.
9:23
I think yes, of course I I do agree with what you're saying on
9:31
both points. I mean, insofar as the empire
9:35
having ended. I think what I mean by that.
9:41
OK, sorry. Or rather, would I be right in
9:44
thinking that what you mean by that is that is that in actual
9:48
fact, the influence that pervades the countries that
9:53
constituted the empire is, to all intents and purposes still
9:57
there, it just manifests in a different way.
10:00
Is that? Is that what you mean?
10:02
Well, that's part of it, yes, absolutely.
10:05
You know, the Commonwealth is, is a soft power operation and
10:10
you know, notionally the, the, the Crown is still head of the
10:14
Commonwealth, but it is certainly from a, a deep state
10:19
point of view, it, it is certainly one of the, the
10:22
channels that, that we influence the, the same countries that we
10:25
were actually physically occupying at a certain point.
10:28
And, and my, I would, I would question the degree of
10:31
independence that many of these countries or any of these
10:33
countries have because, because we still accept and, and those
10:39
those countries still look up to, in a certain sense, Britain.
10:46
Yeah, OK. No, no, with that I would
10:49
totally agree. It depends.
10:52
Yeah, I know. I suppose it depends on how many
10:56
layers one wants to consider. There might be in terms of
11:00
motivation and benefits, perceived benefits on either
11:05
side. If if one's to imagine that the
11:12
empire was supposedly benefiting the ruling classes and indeed
11:19
the state of the United Kingdom during its pomp, then I I don't
11:28
know that one can suggest that the same could be said for the
11:35
sort of legacy framework now. And I'm, I'm really only talking
11:39
about the sort of the, the ruling class is part in the,
11:43
the, the way I see it is that the, the communications and the
11:50
dealings with countries that were formerly part of the empire
11:56
and do have terrific resources and capabilities that could
12:02
still be tapped into. I don't, I just don't see that
12:04
that's being done effectively it.
12:07
I think that depends on what your definition is because you
12:11
know, I would argue that the British Empire was not about the
12:15
ruling classes. The British Empire was about the
12:17
City of London, the British East India Company.
12:19
It was, it was a financial corporate empire that, that made
12:23
use of the resources of the state and the, and the cover of
12:28
it being the British State Empire as to cover the
12:32
activities, the corporate financial activities that were
12:36
going on. And, and, and in fact, the deep
12:39
state was, was tied into that. If we look at what's going on
12:42
today, I would argue and we're seeing, you know, the, the, the,
12:46
the coming out of the shadows once again of the merger between
12:49
state and corporation and the merger between state and
12:52
financial institution, that, that it's, it's again changing
12:56
into something that maybe resembles a bit more of what was
12:59
going on in, in the late 1800s. But but you know, if, if that's
13:03
your definition of what the empire was, then I think what
13:06
we're seeing today is it looks a lot more like that than than
13:09
than the idea that it was, you know, pumping up the the so
13:13
called oligarchy or aristocracy, whatever you want to call it.
13:20
Yeah, OK. I think actually in in either
13:22
situation there, what what I would say is, is very stark.
13:25
And funnily enough, we've talked about this before, but the one
13:27
that, you know, as far as the British were concerned, and, and
13:31
I think we do have to be quite specific because when you
13:33
consider how other Western nations colonised that the, the,
13:37
the modus upper and was different in each respect.
13:41
But the, what characterised British, the, the British sort
13:46
of colonial approach, or at least one of the defining things
13:49
that enabled so much of what you describe was the development of
13:54
infrastructure in order that a lot of the things that had to
13:59
happen, which did have a bearing on all the the finance and
14:01
banking things was, was deliverable.
14:05
And what is very, very stark, I would say pretty much without
14:10
exception, is that post independence, that
14:14
infrastructure has completely and utterly crumbled.
14:18
And that therefore has frustrated what one might regard
14:22
as efforts to continue to benefit the City of London and
14:28
the bankers. Because you, you know, you do
14:30
still require things to actually work.
14:33
And that's the bit that's been lost control of.
14:37
And that and you know, and then, then, well, I don't want to sort
14:40
of confuse the conversation, but then it's interesting to look
14:43
now at how the European Union has sort of inveigled itself in
14:48
lots of parts of these world, lots of these parts of the
14:51
world. And also China again and the
14:54
influence that China's brought to bear.
14:56
UAE. There are, you know, lots of
14:58
other countries have had the chance to, I would say, come in
15:02
and to a great extent displace what the British might otherwise
15:09
still be doing. So I would push back a little
15:14
bit on that as well because of course the infrastructure has
15:16
crumbled in these countries, but infrastructure has crumbled in
15:20
Britain and in the United States and the in the EU as well.
15:23
Because of course we're in the transitionary economic period
15:26
where we've abandoned the productive capability that we
15:31
have and therefore we don't need that infrastructure that we are
15:37
turning ourselves into a digital services economy.
15:42
And alongside that comes the totalitarian digital grid that
15:49
we are all familiar with. And, and the in fact, the
15:52
restrictions on travel, the restrictions on freedoms that
15:58
are coming with that don't need that infrastructure either.
16:02
So. So I would suggest that that
16:04
it's maybe not as simple as as as that.
16:09
OK, yeah, I mean, I I agree with you that that's exactly how it's
16:13
being put forward. But I think, you know, just
16:16
considering what Patrick Wood was talking to John by the other
16:18
day, you know, we're to an extent talking about technocracy
16:23
and the the idea that that's how the situation can run.
16:27
Of course, it's still unproven. And let's just think about
16:31
something we've we were covering on.
16:33
Well, not, not you or me, but but that was dealt with on
16:38
Wednesday's news programme this week was lithium, for example,
16:41
is constant bang on a bit. You know, whether it's rare
16:44
earth minerals or this, that and the other all of this stuff,
16:48
despite the fact, yes, it is digital and therefore it's
16:51
apparently not tangible, of course it is there.
16:53
There is a massive amount of infrastructure and resource
16:58
requirement for this. And I think that that is totally
17:03
overlooked. You know, the, the idea that
17:07
this stuff can just build and build and build without there
17:10
needing to be an improvement. If they if this is is to
17:15
actually play out without there being an improvement in the way
17:19
in which that happens. Because at the moment, for
17:21
example, the, the United Kingdom's plan for digital
17:25
everything is, is, has got holes a mile wide in it because they
17:30
don't have the materials to be able to do what it is.
17:33
And that's why I, you know, I do go by and it's to sound sort of
17:37
mundanely pragmatic, but I, but I do think that that one cannot
17:41
ignore the requirement for an infrastructure that does deliver
17:45
whatever it is, however conceptual.
17:47
The final point actually is there are still people and
17:52
things that need to be in place for that to happen.
17:55
And that's the bit that I see as having changed so radically from
17:59
the days of empire. And when we, it doesn't matter
18:02
whether we're talking about the East India Company or whatever
18:04
it was, but the, the system underneath which the, the
18:08
banking operation sat was a well oiled machine.
18:12
And I don't see that that that is the case now.
18:15
So I, I, I totally agree, but that's absolutely where, where
18:18
we seem to be going as a country.
18:19
So this is not exclusive to, you know, the empire as it was or
18:22
is, but but I think it's it, you know, the the idea of a collapse
18:30
is, you know, something that people really do have to
18:33
consider, but in but in every regard.
18:36
I mean, I would completely agree with that bit than you said
18:38
there, Charles. I would argue that the empire
18:40
that that that was and I as I say that I would argue still is
18:45
is in a state of collapse and and you know, an expression of
18:49
that. Of course, you know, the, the
18:51
empire can only be built on people and, and what we have
18:57
seen of course in the last 100 years is a collapse in standards
19:01
right across the board. So inevitably the expression of
19:04
empire that we see is in a state of collapse.
19:07
They make bad decisions, they make wrong decisions.
19:09
They, they don't recognise the need for, as you say, the, the,
19:16
the, the fact that they do still require infrastructure if
19:19
they're going to develop this digital control grid.
19:23
At every level of society, we see this, this collapse in, in
19:27
intellect and, and ability. And so inevitably, whatever the
19:32
expression of empire that we have is going to come up in the
19:35
same type of, we're going to see the same type of collapse.
19:39
I would I would suggest. Yeah, OK.
19:42
I'd say. Yeah.
19:43
I mean, I in a sense, it seems to me like we're we're sort of
19:47
talking about the same thing, but from perhaps slightly
19:49
different angles in that we're both talking about collapse.
19:53
And I suppose, yes, to be fair, what I'm describing by collapse
19:58
means that my perspective is that that's a failure.
20:01
Is that, that that therefore suggests that actually Britain
20:03
has lost, you know, the United Kingdom has lost it, the grip it
20:06
once had. But but I mean, that's a, it's,
20:10
you know, in a way, a slightly more semantic point on the issue
20:12
of, of recriminations. And you know, how awful all this
20:17
was. I, I, I really was only talking
20:18
about the way in which that relates to to the very dull sort
20:24
of. Sometimes overt political
20:27
discourse and and the egging on of countries to to call for
20:30
reparations in the church getting involved that it just
20:33
just the type of thing that is just so, so utterly pointless,
20:40
frankly. And and it it doesn't in any way
20:43
address any of the things that you're actually talking about.
20:46
So this is so it's, it's totally superficial and you know, it's a
20:51
directory. Yeah, yeah, it's totally, an
20:53
utterly, totally an utterly. And and you know, you think of
20:56
how you know that then pushing on to something like slavery and
21:01
like the National Gallery or the National Portrait Gallery.
21:03
I think now, well, if just for a number of years, it's certainly
21:07
on the website. I can't remember if it's beside
21:09
their paintings. You know, every single portrait
21:12
or painting has has a, a sort of, it was like a Fact Check of
21:18
whether or not the artist or the subject of the painting or
21:22
whoever commissioned or paid for it had any links to slavery.
21:26
OK, if all the things, you know, what, is there anything else
21:30
you'd like to write about it? No, no, no, we'll just, we'll
21:32
just concentrate on that one thing.
21:34
And of course, by slavery, they only meant the slavery of.
21:39
Well, I always describe sort of African people.
21:42
I mean, it's so it's just so unbelievably superficial and
21:50
narrow and and inflammatory, but yeah, so that I think that's
21:55
really what I meant. But no, I mean, otherwise, yeah.
21:56
Gosh, I I would totally agree. And, you know, we talked, I
22:00
think it was last week. I absolutely we're talking about
22:02
the the Roman Empire and all of it.
22:04
I mean, it's it's endlessly fascinating.
22:07
And in fact, Jim, again, this came up to a certain extent with
22:11
EM Burlingame on the the idea of, of civilizations and and
22:16
that kind of thing and and how how this idea of sort of power
22:22
and influence persists, but through the people.
22:25
And I thought, I thought, I thought that was very
22:26
interesting. Well, Mike, do you not think
22:29
that there is a case to be made, as difficult as it might be for
22:36
Empire? No, I don't.
22:39
I don't think that that because what's the cost for that?
22:43
And, you know, I, I, I really find that a hard argument to to
22:48
agree with. You know, it comes back to the
22:51
the famous scene in in the Life of Brian where they're talking
22:54
about what did the Romans ever did for us and of course the
22:57
aqueducts and all this kind of stuff.
22:59
Well, yeah, OK. But one, one of the things we
23:03
got to remember is that the, you know, the reason that
23:06
infrastructure was built was to make the trading and effectively
23:13
the rape of the countries possible.
23:18
You know, at the, at the, the, the, the idea of the modern
23:21
nation state is based on the principle.
23:24
It comes from the Treaty of Westphalia.
23:25
It's based on the principle. If you look at the first clause
23:27
of that treaty, it talks about each nation operating for the
23:34
benefit of the other. And through that comes peace.
23:37
And this is the basis of the modern nation state.
23:42
Now that is totally anti empire because if you, if you're
23:47
recognising that peaceful coexistence comes from the fact
23:51
that you can benefit as, as a nation from helping your fellow
23:55
nation benefit. That is a very different
23:59
approach to going into a country, colonising it,
24:02
installing infrastructure, installing a legal system that
24:06
suits you and withdrawing without giving any decent
24:12
compensation, withdrawing the raw materials from that company
24:15
so that you can profit and build your productive capacity.
24:18
Right. There's, there's 22 very
24:21
different approaches there. And I think that that, you know,
24:24
for all its faults, and I'm not denying there are many, many
24:27
faults with, with bricks. Bricks seems to be more aligned
24:31
with the Westphalian principle than other forms of of about.
24:36
I don't even want to call it empire because I'm not sure that
24:38
it is. But you know, if we believe in
24:40
the idea of peoples and nations having sovereignty, then they
24:46
have to be allowed to develop independently and how we can
24:48
assist with that development as long as it is a bilateral
24:53
assistance and not a unilateral assistance.
24:56
And that that that would be that would be my answer to that.
25:00
This is a long conversation, but I think that that, you know,
25:04
there is strength in people who come from a common background
25:09
and have common outlook working as a nation.
25:13
I mean this is the whole principle of of a nation.
25:15
That's that's a lot of that's where a lot of the strength that
25:20
we have comes from having a common basis for what we're
25:25
doing, whether that's that is a family level or a community
25:29
level or a nation level. But I think that's where the, I
25:34
think that's where the the conflict starts arising is at
25:36
what point? No.
25:41
In what sense? Well, for example, China has 1
25:45
1/2 billion people. I mean, that's not even a
25:48
nation. That is not just an entire
25:50
civilization. But then you could compare that
25:52
to say, I don't know, Liechtenstein, which has what,
25:56
40,000 people? But, but that, but that's based
25:59
on the implication that that people have to be managed.
26:03
And, and you know, with that, that, that gets in the whole
26:08
conversation about, about what our form of governance should
26:12
be. But, you know, I, I think that,
26:15
I think that the, the, the principle that we're talking
26:18
about here is, is 1 where we, no matter what size of, of
26:23
organisational unit that we have, that we're looking at our
26:27
neighbours and, and, and we're looking at them as friends, not,
26:30
not in, in competition. That we've got to Blatter them
26:33
over the head with a big gun and, and make sure that they're,
26:37
they keep low while we rise to the top.
26:40
That we could the, you know, that we can, we can actually
26:44
cooperate and function and recognise that, that, that other
26:49
groupings, no matter what size they are, might have something
26:53
to bring to the party. And, and that we can work
26:55
together to, you know, and this, this, this comes back to this
27:00
issue of whether we can actually outgrow the whole issue or, or
27:06
concept of geopolitics and, and think more in terms of, of a
27:11
genuine recognition of and a genuine respect for the
27:15
differences that we have. And that those differences might
27:17
actually bring solutions. But that only works if we are
27:21
prepared to consider people from other countries or other
27:26
groupings as as friends rather than people that are just trying
27:30
to steal our lunch. Well, I was just going back to
27:34
I, I don't mean to be too much of a parent, but but might use
27:40
the word assist And I, I just, I was going to ask what you're
27:48
talking about relationships between countries and, and the
27:53
notion of assistance. I was just wondering what what
27:56
you meant by that and how you sort of see that.
28:00
I can't remember what I said. No what?
28:01
What? OK, annoyingly I can't remember
28:04
exactly what you said either, so we have to listen back on on no.
28:08
What's my what Mike was saying is that instead of going into
28:13
those regions, colonising and imposing your politics and your
28:18
beliefs etcetera, you rather allow them to grow and if yours
28:22
is more advanced than theirs, then you assist.
28:25
And so you're asking what I mean by assist?
28:28
Yeah, yes. Well, I mean, OK, cooperate,
28:31
whatever, whatever, whatever term we want to use.
28:34
But but you know, The thing is that we're not going in with
28:37
guns and saying right, this is the way it's going to be that
28:41
that actually we do have to respect the approach that.
28:45
So, you know, if, if, if, if a country that we consider to be,
28:50
you know, a bunch of uncivilised heathens, if we view them that
28:56
way and, and therefore we have no respect for, for their wish
29:02
to live in a particular way with a particular lifestyle.
29:05
You know, then we may have a tendency to go into that country
29:10
and, and say, no, this is the way you've got to do it.
29:12
And if you don't want to do it that way, tough luck because
29:14
we've got the guns and you don't.
29:16
This isn't the right, this isn't the right approach.
29:18
That's not cooperation. You know, it begins with
29:21
respect, respect for, for the, the culture that that exists in
29:25
another part of the world. And if, if the answer from them
29:30
is no, then the answer is no. And and we should not be
29:33
weighing in with our boots just because they have a particular
29:36
rare earth under the ground. OK, Yeah, good.
29:42
Yeah, I, I, no, I mean, the, the reason I ask is because again,
29:46
slightly going back to where we started the conversation with
29:49
regard to all the various projects that in particular the
29:53
United Kingdom has running in countries all over the world
29:56
under the apparent heading of assistance.
30:00
And having having been in a position where I've supposedly
30:06
been providing that sort of assistance.
30:08
My question, not just now, but even at the time was always, was
30:13
always to consider putting the boot on the other first and, and
30:17
imagining why it would be that people, wherever they may be,
30:22
would consider that they actually want assistance and
30:26
what the what the purpose of such a thing might be.
30:30
And, and I would say, of course, I totally agree with you.
30:33
I mean, the the idea of just sort of tipping up somewhere and
30:36
saying, right, we'll have that and we've got guns.
30:39
So, you know, just keep quiet or, or indeed, you know, die,
30:44
make die makes an offer, whatever it is.
30:47
I think honesty frankly, and it should be, it should be no
30:50
different from a transaction between an individual.
30:54
If if somebody has got sort of, you know, lovely carrots or
30:58
marrows in their garden and you want them and you say right,
31:00
well I'd be interested in, you know, in some of those, what
31:03
would you like for them? You know, why should we regard
31:08
that just because we are supposedly, and I absolutely say
31:11
supposedly more more developed, more civilised, more powerful,
31:15
whatever whatever qualification that that somehow gives us the
31:19
right to first of all, consider that we can get what we want.
31:27
But but also that we that we sort of have any kind of a right
31:30
to do anything other than simply declare honestly to whichever
31:36
doesn't, not even a country, you know, region, whoever's, whoever
31:40
is controlling a particular resource that we're interested
31:43
in. Why?
31:46
And I appreciate this sounds hopelessly naive, but, but, but
31:50
really to consider that anything other than saying we really like
31:54
your XY and Z, would you like to enter into some sort of mutually
32:00
beneficial agreement? And I think this is this goes
32:02
back to to what I've observed with the with the post empire
32:10
countries. Is that that bit And OK, we of
32:13
course, if one considers that all of it's to an extent
32:17
intentional, then fine, that explains it away.
32:20
But but I don't think that is the case for absolutely
32:23
everybody, certainly not on the corporate spectrum where
32:25
actually maximising profits is what matters.
32:28
But the the cat handed way in which people try to negotiate
32:34
and make arrangements in order that they can try to satisfy
32:37
both parties, It's just woeful. But it's so, it's so flipping
32:41
obvious. You know, you're quite right.
32:45
You don't have the guns, you don't have the inherent
32:48
suggestion that somehow you're better.
32:50
But but, but nonetheless, the, the without corruption, without
32:56
the pouring of significant amounts of money into the
33:00
pockets of people that shouldn't be taking control of it, very
33:05
little of this would be possible because the, the absolute lack
33:08
of respect for the simple process of coming to an
33:12
arrangement that satisfies both parties.
33:15
And and that is exactly where we should be with it.
33:17
So, so going back to your question, Germ, as to whether,
33:21
you know, whether empire can be good.
33:23
I mean, I, I, I don't, I, I, I don't see how.
33:27
I mean, it's, I, I said earlier that the British Empire was
33:32
characterised OK by a lot of things.
33:34
But one of the, one of the great legacies has been the road rail
33:38
shipping networks, which, which given the time at which they've
33:42
done in the terrain and all the rest of it are absolutely
33:44
extraordinary. Of course, almost all now
33:46
totally redundant and and broken, but unless those were
33:52
going to be of significant benefit for the people that were
33:55
living in those places, then then frankly, none of that
33:58
should have happened. You know, what use, what use
34:01
does somebody living in, well, let's say Eastern Africa sort of
34:07
in the interior have for a railway, unless it is simply to
34:12
to dig stuff out the ground, take it back out and what are
34:14
they going to get out of it? You know, supposedly our
34:16
education voting, but of course that's tax and control.
34:20
So yes, I mean, I, I'm afraid to say I don't see that.
34:24
I don't think there's such a thing as a sort of benevolent
34:27
empire. And we go back to the, the idea
34:30
of the, the, you know, the Monty Python, you know, what did, what
34:34
did the Romans ever do for us? Well, I mean, I think it's quite
34:37
clear, although we wouldn't be having this conversation, They,
34:39
they, they laid the template, they set out the means by which
34:43
all of these things can be done and, you know, further carried
34:47
out by others along the way. I mean, you know, to an extent
34:50
the Normans and, and that the baton was simply picked up in
34:55
the, well, sort of early or pre Victorian period and and rolled
35:01
out again. So the the the only, the only.
35:05
Well, in fact, Charles, you know you can, if you let's pick a
35:09
time in history where we start. If we look at the, the original
35:13
Silk Road, the original Silk Road trading empire was as far
35:18
from the European side was, was based in Venice and, and the
35:25
Lombard area. This created a banking system
35:29
which was known as the Lombard banking system.
35:31
You go to the City of London now you see Lombard St you see and,
35:34
and you see all these references back to that original Venetian
35:40
empire. And, and so you can follow,
35:43
actually, you can actually follow that as it, as it moved
35:45
westwards from, from Venice and, and through the, the Dutch and
35:52
the Netherlands and the Dutch East India Company into the City
35:54
of London and so on. So, you know, this is a, it's a
35:57
continuous process rather than sort of an empire collapsing
36:02
and, and reforming somewhere else.
36:04
It has moved, moved across the world.
36:06
So it's ended up in London and now it's sort of headed, you
36:09
know, in more recent year, decades headed West so that you
36:12
can't ignore the, the Wall Street part of that as well.
36:15
But nonetheless, it it's, it's still there as it was.
36:20
Yeah, I know. I mean, I I would totally agree.
36:22
I I mean, I'm simply talking about sort of rehashing the same
36:25
template. I'm not, I'm not specifically
36:26
saying that's that's British, but I mean, no, it's, it's
36:29
fascinating. I think when one examines it in
36:30
those terms, it's it's everywhere.
36:32
Just it's exactly, it keeps keeps rolling.
36:35
Yeah, but but I just, you know, I don't see that that one can
36:41
ever say there are perceived benefits for the the whatever
36:46
they're called. You know, there's the sort of
36:47
the victims or the the nations that end up having this
36:51
superimposed on top of them. And I mean, but I but I mean do
36:55
you do you have? Just before you ask Jeremy this,
36:58
I'd just like to make one other point and that's this whole
37:00
issue of British, because a lot of people, of course, are or get
37:03
very sensitive about once you start accusing, because then
37:06
maybe we're British ourselves. We sometimes get upset about it
37:11
being attached to the word British.
37:13
And I was just, I just want to, before we move on, make the
37:16
point. There's quite an astute
37:18
observation by David Scott and that was that we have an
37:23
occupying power in this country and we we should perceive it as
37:27
being parasitic in nature. So it's not British, it's not an
37:31
expression of the British people.
37:33
It is something that has been imposed on this country at this
37:37
point in time and maybe if we recognise that we can begin to
37:42
to think about ways that we might want to deal with it.
37:46
Sorry, what? Was your question, Charles?
37:49
Oh, just whether with your question about empire and and
37:52
there being any benefit from it. So I was just wondering whether
37:56
you had a sort of counter, you know, whether you could see a
38:01
way in which it can work. No, I largely do.
38:05
No, I largely do agree with with your comments.
38:09
I was obviously asking for the sake of of devil's advocate.
38:13
Yeah. However, and this is obviously
38:17
perhaps a more personal tug of war, but I am a result of
38:22
effectively the British Empire's expansion, my parents too, and
38:26
my grandparents and in fact the entire Afrikaner nation if you
38:30
think about it. And so if they are no perceived
38:35
benefits, then it kind of negates quite a lot of stuff
38:39
that that matters to us now. Things are what they are
38:41
obviously, and you can't reverse anything.
38:43
So then I guess the conversation comes around, well, comes around
38:48
to what happens next. So South Africa, for example, is
38:52
no longer part of the Commonwealth, but I think Canada
38:54
and Australia still are. Should they in essence,
38:58
disconnect from the Crown? I think that's, that's not a,
39:04
that's not a, a question that we can answer.
39:06
That is something which is absolutely for the people of
39:10
those countries. But I mean on, on the, you know,
39:13
I'm also a product of that expansion in a sense, because,
39:17
you know, I come from Northern Ireland, Presbyterian family.
39:22
We were sent there as part of various settlements, settlement
39:26
operations in the in fact, I can't even remember exactly when
39:32
our family ended up in that country.
39:34
But but the point is you're, you're asking where does that,
39:40
where does that leave you? And I think this is, this is a
39:43
tricky thing. I think it becomes what we're
39:45
seeing in terms of of this sort of pressure for reparations or
39:50
the pressure for the pressure on the Afrikaans nation within
39:57
South Africa and so on. Is it and just a continuing
39:59
expression of the same types of divide and conquer tactics that
40:03
we've seen from empires in the past.
40:06
And you know, the fact of the matter is you are there and
40:12
you've been there for whatever number of years that that.
40:18
It, it would be incorrect in my opinion to that then say well,
40:21
you've no right to be there anymore, so get out this, this
40:24
would not be the right thing to do.
40:26
I think we've got to, we've got to start recognising that black
40:31
white in South Africa or Protestant Catholic in Ireland
40:34
or whatever it happens to be, we have been on the receiving end
40:38
of manipulations of a different type of people.
40:43
And that actually we are all the victims of that in the sense.
40:49
And we shouldn't be actually even thinking about it in terms
40:52
of victimhood anymore, in my opinion.
40:54
But we should be recognising that we are friends and the
40:58
enemy is something different and we should be coming together on
41:01
that basis and not, not resorting to to falling into the
41:08
same old trap which is imposed on us by them to believe that
41:12
somehow we are enemies. And so, you know, I, I think we
41:16
got to, we got to start recognising what has happened in
41:21
a, in a slightly different way over the last few 100 years and
41:25
recognising who the the, the instigators of that have have
41:29
been and who's actually has been on the receiving end of those
41:34
activities. And maybe we recognise who the
41:38
real enemy is at that point. Yeah.
41:40
Well, what about Israel, for example?
41:42
I mean, we know that there are many commentators who we
41:46
personally know who will argue against the existence of Israel.
41:51
But people who are born our age now in Israel, it's not their
41:55
fault what happened in 19 in the 1940s.
41:59
No, but they have to they, they, they currently do not they,
42:02
they're currently the people that are pulling the triggers
42:04
charm. And so, so you know, they have
42:07
to begin by recognising what it is that they're pulling the
42:11
trigger on behalf of. And they've got to, in my
42:14
opinion, they've got to stop doing that and they've got to
42:17
stop doing it yesterday. And they've got to actually
42:22
recognise that the people that they're pulling the triggers on
42:25
have rights. So that's, that's where that
42:28
conversation begins. But, but I, I'm I'm afraid I
42:31
agree that that state that that that state of Israel actually
42:35
does have no right to exist as it's currently constituted.
42:39
Now what you do with the people that live there, that's a
42:41
different question. But the entity itself does not
42:44
have a right to exist. Is it would be my personal
42:47
opinion because it is the creation of of the of British
42:52
manipulation. Are there other examples do you
42:55
think? I mean, obviously they are.
42:57
Sorry, let me rephrase that. What other examples are similar
43:01
to to Israel? I think South Africa is quite
43:03
different. Because we are talking about
43:11
Empire and the expansion. No, I mean, you could look,
43:14
look, Jeremy, you could argue that every border in Africa was
43:17
a creation of empire and that it's all fake.
43:21
And, you know, and I think, I think that I think that there is
43:24
very much an argument for saying to people, well, you know, this
43:29
border was drawn in order to inflamed tensions between
43:35
people's tribal groups, whatever it happens to be in Africa.
43:40
If we're taking Africa as an example.
43:42
And, and we need to say to people, you know, what, what's
43:45
your view of this? Do you feel that you're part of
43:48
the Zulu nation or some other? I mean, I, I don't know the
43:50
names of, of many of the, the, the, the nations in, in Africa.
43:54
But the question is, do do those borders get redrawn or do people
43:57
now have some kind of feeling of, of connection to the entity
44:02
that, that that there happened to be surrounded by?
44:06
But that happens through conversation rather than
44:08
conquest at this point. It would would be how I would
44:11
argue for it. US also.
44:16
Well, the United States, you know, you know, no matter how
44:20
you look at it, the United States has a lot of things to be
44:25
proud of. It's got a lot of things to be
44:27
absolutely ashamed of. And, and the effective genocide
44:30
of of the native peoples is and the continuing suppression of
44:35
those peoples is something that has to be addressed.
44:38
It's I think there's no question about that.
44:40
The question is what, what you do about it?
44:43
That starts with a conversation. And it's not about sort of, you
44:48
know, the, the, the, the types of, of reparations that we're
44:52
talking about. It's, it's how to look into the
44:55
future and what, what, what happens in the future.
44:58
It's, I think what's happened has happened.
45:00
And, and you don't solve that problem by just necessarily just
45:04
by throwing money at the issue. Because if you just if you throw
45:07
money at the issue but don't resolve the fundamental problems
45:12
that exist, then then you're not actually solving anything.
45:18
But this goes back to something that you have said a number of
45:20
times, Mike, that we need to take responsibility firstly at
45:25
our, at our individual level and then in our family level and
45:29
then our community level. Because when we have those
45:31
conversations on, on the ground level, that is where we have
45:36
influence. We we don't really have
45:37
influence over what's happening at the top.
45:44
We don't have direct influence. But if you know, I've said, I've
45:49
said many times that that the top, whatever that is, has no
45:56
direct capability to control world affairs.
46:00
It has to use layers, various layers of middle management, no?
46:06
I'm sorry, what I'm saying is, what I'm saying is that the the
46:09
expansion of various empires has never come from people on the
46:13
ground, has come from the top using the people on the ground.
46:16
That's right. So, so yeah, so we've got to
46:19
have a we've got to recognise that and and make a decision
46:23
about whether we want to whether we want to be involved in that
46:26
or not. And the same goes for whether we
46:28
want to go to fight in a war. For example, the, the, the
46:31
government of the day says, well, we're going to have a war
46:33
with country X. And so you've all got to join up
46:38
and you've all got to get involved and whatnot.
46:40
Well, you know, if we look at the the first and Second World
46:44
wars, there were a few people that were not prepared to, to do
46:47
that. And they, they found various
46:49
ways of some of them in the First World War didn't survive
46:52
as a result, because that was something that was viewed very
46:56
dimly by the state. The Second World War still
46:59
viewed pretty dimly, but at least they weren't shooting
47:01
anybody as far as I'm aware. Correct me if I'm wrong,
47:04
Charles, but you know, countries can only prosecute wars abroad
47:10
if at this point in time if, if people are willing to go and
47:15
take part in those. Of course, we're seeing that
47:19
change in the next decade or two because more and more autonomous
47:23
and and remotely controlled computer controlled AI
47:26
controlled capability is being developed.
47:29
And I think that is a step that we definitely don't want to be
47:32
going in. We don't, but I, I'm, I'm, I
47:38
think we should reserve judgement as to how that would
47:39
actually play out. I think, I think there's,
47:43
there's such a ridiculous sort of hyperbole surrounding all
47:48
that kind of thing. And the, the notion that just
47:54
because in well, what's become sort of conventional warfare,
47:59
you know, if you, if you have control of the air and then you
48:02
can begin to assert dominance over particular pieces of
48:06
ground, whole ground, you know, and how you, you shape the, the
48:12
battlespace. As a result.
48:13
The idea that this can be done remotely or, and, or
48:17
autonomously and that there can be an enduring effect, I think
48:20
is, I think is a complete misreading of the situation.
48:23
I think you can, you can create devastating sort of human
48:28
casualty with these sorts of things.
48:31
And I think, you know, we're specific, well, specifically
48:32
talking about, let's say drones for the time being, because
48:35
they're, they're in relative terms, sort of cheap and easy.
48:37
But, but in terms of enduring effects, I, I would be, I'd be
48:41
very, very doubtful about that. And I, I, OK, everywhere is
48:44
different. Of course I would cite say
48:47
Afghanistan over the period, you know, 2001 onwards and how, how
48:56
utterly failed any effort was at what was called ground holding.
49:03
The, the, the whole, the operations there that were
49:09
described as being to, let's say, liberate and then take
49:15
control of and, and and re redevelop a particular area
49:23
where I think without exception, utterly hopeless it is.
49:28
I think people have a massive tendency to underestimate how
49:31
difficult this sort of thing is and what it really means.
49:34
So I, I don't know whether beyond the the initial horror
49:40
of, of casualties, I don't know whether any of these, whether
49:44
any of these effects will be felt in a sustained context.
49:47
I, I'm afraid I, I'd rather doubt it actually.
49:51
But yeah, sorry, Jim, just go back.
49:53
And just to qualify, I mean, not, not, I'm not suggesting I,
49:57
I struck a, a personal nerve, but I, but I do think it's very
50:00
important to make a distinction. No, no, no, no, but I, but I,
50:02
but I, it's, it's, it's a point very, very much worth making
50:06
because first of all, it brings out the sort of nebulous
50:11
question of, well, I mean, you know, how far do we go back with
50:14
all of this? And that's a perennial problem
50:17
to a certain extent. SO11 wants to try to be
50:19
consistent. And I think you're very, you
50:22
know, he's very opposite to bring in Israel, for example.
50:25
I think I think that that absolutely is a totally
50:27
different situation, which we probably haven't got time to
50:30
quite go into. But I'm sure that people have
50:32
who've certainly followed UK column and and listened to this
50:36
podcast for a period of time and understand exactly what I mean
50:39
by that. And I think there is, there is
50:41
absolutely a distinction to be drawn between the banking and
50:47
corporate influences and then the state, state activities in
50:55
terms of, you know, sort of colonial subsuming of, of
51:02
countries into an empire. And then the, the settler
51:07
communities who go there to, I would say, do, do the, the part
51:12
that I was talking about earlier, which, which relies on
51:17
mutual benefit, you know, you can't, you can't simply, I mean,
51:20
by and large in, well, actually all, let's say all of the parts
51:27
of Africa that were settled in by Europeans, agriculture was
51:33
the, the, the absolutely the main practise of that.
51:37
And you, you can't make that work without there being a, a
51:42
benefit for the people who are, who are there, you know, nearby.
51:48
So no, I, I do, and I don't mean to sound inconsistent, but I do
51:51
absolutely make a distinction for that.
51:53
And OK, yes, to an extent. I'm motivated to say that by my
51:57
own, well, personal experiences in so far as how I've seen it
52:00
play out. And, and from having spent,
52:03
admittedly not in recent years, but having spent some time in
52:06
South Africa in, you know, a few parts of the country and seen
52:10
the relationship between the, the progeny of those settler
52:16
communities, you know, effectively the, the
52:18
relationship between white and black people with which I have
52:20
absolutely no issue. I mean, the, we're always going
52:23
to be able to find exceptions to that.
52:25
But but the way in which those people rather alongside each
52:28
other is, is, you know, it is, it is fantastic.
52:32
I mean, it's, it's sort of it's heartwarming.
52:33
And I don't mean that in a patronising sense.
52:35
I mean, I'd be equally tonighted if people, if, if white people
52:38
in the United Kingdom behave like that towards one another.
52:40
But there's such a, there's such a level of sort of mutual love
52:43
and respect. And I've seen that all over, you
52:46
know, sort of southern and Eastern Africa where there are
52:48
these still white, you know, the, the today's iteration of
52:54
white settler communities. And they would not have been
52:57
able to survive had they not been acting in such fashion.
53:02
That meant that their operations were were working and perceived
53:06
to be working in the eyes of of people who, let's say, had been
53:10
there first. But as I say, they'll be falling
53:12
into the world. How far back do you go thing?
53:14
Because ultimately we've all come from somewhere else.
53:18
So I think that's, I think that's worth saying.
53:20
And also we have to, we do have to be quite specific about these
53:22
things. Because if funnily enough,
53:23
actually a conversation I was having yesterday was about just
53:28
kind of interesting distinction between say the way that that
53:32
manifested in Africa as opposed to in India.
53:35
There is, there is a popular in terms of people, there is a
53:41
legacy in say India, but it's but it's completely different.
53:44
You know, the Anglo Indian community is not in any way
53:47
comparable to what has remained in Africa.
53:51
And that that is, that is a, you know, a sort of talking point.
53:55
It's, it's an interesting thing. So I don't think 1 can be
53:58
generic or universal about any of these things.
54:01
So to be very specific about South Africa, no, I mean, I, you
54:06
know, you can point to isolated incidents, but no, I mean,
54:08
essentially I see no issue with, with the, the, the settler
54:15
practise and, and mentality. And I'm sure there will be
54:18
people who, who will react against that and that and that's
54:22
completely fine. But that is the way I see it.
54:25
Just quickly as we come in for a landing, nice way to circle back
54:30
to the start of the conversation.
54:31
We're chatting about embassies and consulates, etcetera.
54:36
Charles, do you think that that countries should have visa
54:42
applications? Hong Kong for example, doesn't
54:45
require a visa for most countries, but like coming to
54:47
the UKII require, I have to apply for a visa, which means
54:52
that I can be rejected. Yeah, I mean that that that's a
54:57
really good question. And it's something in which or
55:00
at least examining that gives gives a really good insight into
55:04
the terrific small minded, small mindedness and pettiness of
55:12
ministers in the British government and indeed the sorts
55:17
of corporate leanings on them. Because it is, it's a little bit
55:24
like the sort of Trump tariffs. I mean, it's it's a kind of it's
55:26
a tit for tat. And this been this has been
55:28
going on forever. You know, a, a particular
55:30
country will make a, make a new policy on the visa requirement
55:36
or the entry charge for a British national to go to that
55:39
country. And then the next thing you know
55:41
that the, you know, the situation is being flipped the
55:43
other way. So I think the whole thing is,
55:47
is, is absurd. No, I, I personally, I don't
55:51
think they should. I don't think there should be
55:52
any requirement. I mean, I think we know now
55:55
without biometric gulf, it is perfectly possible to keep, keep
56:01
a record of somebody that goes into a country when they go
56:05
across the border. And to, to, to put you through
56:08
the process of, you know, all that investment of of sort of
56:13
time and effort to say that, yes, you know, we, we think that
56:17
it's appropriate that you come here and obviously, no, I mean,
56:19
I think, I think that's completely wrong.
56:20
And that, and that in a way that goes back to the heart of, of
56:24
what we're talking about, which is this element of there being
56:27
mutual respect between countries.
56:29
And, and what really what, what does that say?
56:31
What does it say if you're saying to 1 country icon, you
56:35
know, and you come, we're not going to check anything, do what
56:37
you like. And then to another, you're
56:38
saying, no, we, we, we're going to do our level best to, to keep
56:42
you out, but we still want to have, have access to all the
56:46
good bits in your country. I mean, that's, that's a, that's
56:48
a ridiculous message to be sending.
56:51
I'm sure you agree, Mike. Absolutely.
56:55
Good, there we go. Well with that in mind I still
56:57
have to apply for a visa, but with some with some good fortune
57:01
I won't be arrested and I'll see you chance in a couple of months
57:04
time. Well, what I would say is good
57:06
luck, good luck wherever you're coming into, whether it be
57:08
Heathrow, well, whichever airport, good, good luck.
57:11
I mean, this is it, you know, go back to the how all these things
57:15
have collapsed. I mean, I, I, I know this sort
57:18
of sounds silly in a way, but I am so embarrassed by the state
57:23
of the larger, well, English airports and the way in which
57:28
they treat people. It, it is appalling.
57:32
And, and yet we have the temerity to, to, you know, in,
57:37
in going back to the word that that Mike used to, to say that
57:43
we can assist other countries with, with matters that they
57:47
might not be able to manage themselves.
57:49
We can't run a flipping airport. Obviously, you know, it is a
57:52
joke. I think we've talked about this
57:53
before. We probably have and sorry to
57:55
Chuck that in now, but, but, but you know, really, if you're
58:00
going to be put, put through all that to get a visa, you should
58:02
be impressed by what you see. You should, you should feel that
58:05
that's that, that you'll sort of recompensed in kind.
58:09
And, and, and I'm afraid that's just, you know, that's not how
58:12
it is anyway, obviously to be enjoyed.
58:14
Make sure you're you're overwhelmingly cheerful and see
58:17
how many responses, appropriate responses you get from anyone in
58:23
in the airports you go through in this country, I would say.
58:26
My Controls Thank you for joining me in the Weekly.