In 1938, after concluding negotiations with Adolf Hitler, then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain spoke of his belief that ‘it is peace for our time’. I think we can consider two interpretations of this; the first being the one that Chamberlain almost certainly intended. That peace had been achieved and conflict had been avoided.
It has been noted that ‘It was the British author, H.G. Wells, that coined the expression: ‘The war that will end war” to describe World War One.’ Of course, just under a year after Chamberlain’s statement there was again conflict between Europe’s great powers, with war having, in its own horrific ways, already broken out elsewhere in the world. I can’t help but wonder if upon hearing of the beginning of the Second World War, H.G. Wells reflected on his earlier optimism—and whether he saw the opening line of The War of the Worlds, ‘early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment,’ as prophetic.
Of course, we live in the early twenty-first, not twentieth century. Borders have changed, as have leaders, Governments and issues. It is here where the second interpretation becomes important. In which, ‘peace for our time’ means that the agreement made to avoid war was reflective of the time in which it had been signed. In other words, when contrasted to a world on the brink, the peace that had been secured was as good as could be. I am not suggesting that this is what Chamberlain intended, but I would like to take the implication that actions and decisions should be read in their spatial and temporal contexts, and apply it to the modern day.
There are those who would find the idea of world leaders adopting this mindset not only acceptable but arguably necessary. Niccolò Machiavelli is one such figure, whose sentiments, or indeed lack thereof, I shall return to later.
It is the potential for this mindset to find purchase now that I want to focus on.
Following President-elect Trump’s success in the recent US election and his looming return to the White House, calculations will likely be being made about various aspects of foreign policy. Understandably, a number of these will relate to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine, no doubt, will assess the implications of Trump’s return to office, but it will not be alone in doing so.
The United Kingdom and European countries will undoubtedly be making their own judgments about what the election’s result means for them and their involvement in the conflict.
The BBC has recently reported that ‘A former advisor to President-elect Donald Trump says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in Ukraine rather than enabling the country to gain back territory occupied by Russia.’ This ‘former advisor’, Bryan Lanza may be providing an insight into the incoming administration's priorities and its strategy.
The consequences of such a strategic shift would probably be felt most keenly in Ukraine, which has experienced and continues to experience so much appalling destruction and suffering. It is not, however, unimaginable that Governments around the world will be considering whether their foreign policies might require adjustment in both method and goal, amidst the backdrop of a catastrophically temperamental Washington regime.
For its part, the United Kingdom may ultimately face a choice. Support the United States and the strategy that it employs, or continue offering support and assistance to Ukraine as it has been doing. The practicality of these options and how they could manifest will obviously depend on the choices of other actors, namely Ukraine, Russia, the United States itself, and the broader European community.
Against the backdrop of such a finicky choice, it is worth noting that Jonathan Powell (recently appointed UK National Security Advisor) and Peter Mandelson (mooted UK ambassador to the US) are veteran, typically Machiavellian, New Labour operators. The latter, who has held the moniker ‘Prince of Darkness’ since at least the 90s, has wasted no time in reinforcing his reputation, having yesterday proposed Farage as a ‘bridgehead’ for UK-US relations.
It is not entirely impossible that the sentiment outlined in The Prince ‘that he will be successful who directs his actions according to the spirit of the times, and that he whose actions do not accord with the times will not be successful’, has been given some thought.
I imagine the list of factors that would play into such a decision would be extensive, with the US-UK relationship and the principles the UK Government aims to uphold among them.
Something which is made more prescient given the recent meeting in Hungary between President Zelensky and Prime Minister Starmer. The latter stated that the summit was “not just about the sovereignty of Ukraine”, but also “our freedom, our democracy and our values”.
Whether countries will re-evaluate their policies, and to what extent they are willing and able to act beyond the wishes of others are important questions, which the incoming US administration may inadvertently help to answer. Perhaps we will see actors assert themselves, policies and purported principles independent of the United States, or reflecting again on the words of H.G. Wells, the world might yet face a ‘great disillusionment,’ one defined by the re-evaluation of long-held assumptions and the reshaping of foreign policy.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/National Digital Archives of Poland
No image changes made.
Comments