Imperialism begins at home

If I had huge amounts of debt in personal loans, which I was struggling to repay, and yet every time I saw a charity collector I gave them whatever was in my pocket, you'd think I was an idiot. Not only an idiot – as a husband to Elvira of Castille and father to Roger Jr and Tancred – you'd think I was irresponsible.

So why is it that at a time when the UK has the biggest peace-time deficit in history, the decision to ring-fence international development budgets is not being treated with the scorn it deserves? People in this country are about to have their benefits cut (whether they contributed to them via National Insurance or not), services cut, lose their jobs etc etc – but it's a question of "morality" that the UK continues to hand money over, more often than not, to corrupt, incompetent and barely democratic regimes in the developing world.

Doesn't charity begin at home? For the religious moralists, isn't there something in the Bible about removing stuff from your own eye before worrying about other people's? For the liberal universalists, if the principle of equality demands the relief of absolute poverty wherever it occurs, (i) shouldn't we give vastly more and (ii) why are we so selective in who we give to?

In my humble opinion (which, while you are here is what you will be subjected to, like it or not), the idea that the government can make a "moral" decision to dole out taxpayers' money overseas while taking away services from people in this country, is just more evidence of the fundamental misconception of the role of the state that pervades our political class.

By which I mean, they think it's their money, not our money, that they're spending. They think the state has a status as something more just a means to the end of facilitating our living together in harmony and comfort.

Which brings me onto defence spending. And if you thought from the above that I'm a right-wing maniac, you may begin to realise that my general position does not quite fit onto the simple left-right spectrum.

The UK is currently engaged in one foreign war in central Asia, which has been going on for nine years. Until its recent glorious, spectacular withdrawal – reminiscent of Dunkirk in its heroism - it was involved in another one in the Middle East. British forces were in that one for seven years.

For what?

I think even the most rabid supporter of The War Against Terrorism (hereafter, TWAT) acknowledges that two wars with a combined duration (so far) of 16 years have not made the UK safer. So, the state has failed in its primary function there.

Is there any other justification for the UK being involved in these foreign wars or laying off teachersandnurses (not a typo, simply a portmanteau concept for the "good" public sector) for the sake of having a new aircraft carrier in six years' time?

You know what it is? Let me tell you. Imperialism. The UK just can't let go of it.

We are a medium-sized country and economy with a colossal debt. Why on earth do we need to spend billions on nuclear weapons everyone knows we'll never use?

Forget about the past and any justification there might have been for them during the Cold War – that has NOTHING to do with upgrading Trident today. Are Germany, Japan, Canada, Brazil etc etc any less safe, any more vulnerable to invasion or foreign subversion or any threat that exists in the real world today than the UK because they don't have nuclear weapons? Is Britain taken any more seriously anywhere because we do have nuclear weapons? I don't think so.

Having armed forces that can (on paper) be projected around the world, like giving away charity, is at the grubby level of Realpolitik about nothing more than securing influence. Getting favours by bullying, protection racketeering or bribery.

At the psychological level, both are about willy-waving. About being seen as the big man. The USA can do it because they are the big man. China can do it because they are the big man. Everyone else – including Russia – mistakenly believes that the 20^th century never happened.

Let's finally drop the 19^th century imperialist notion of the "nation state" as something with any justification or mission outside its borders. Look where that got us in the last 200 years. States exist to serve their own citizens and nothing else.

Postscript:

I readily acknowledge that there are counterarguments to the various things I've said here, and that my position simplifies things. Who knows, maybe something I said sounds a bit like something someone else who I wouldn't agree with once said. But if wars can be started because one man thinks "it's the right thing to do", I don't see why I should have to give all viewpoints an equal airing. This is my bloody blog.