Portland Bill lighthouse, Dorset, UK – warning fog signal. Flickr/ Elliott Brown. Some rights reserved.It is
said that in the 1930s an English newspaper once published the following
headline: “Fog in Channel – Continent Cut Off”. Ever since, this has been taken
as a snapshot of British national character, evidence of a longstanding British
attitude vis-à-vis the continent. And no wonder, for the island has been
coveted by a succession of Roman, Saxon, Viking, Norman, Frank and German invaders
alike. So, it was only natural that the British would now want to keep the rest
of the world at arm’s length, as evidenced by the recent ‘Brexit’majority vote
to leave the European Union (one of the greatest setbacks faced by the
organization since the rejection of a European Constitution by French and Dutch
voters in 2005.)
So much
for Britain on their own soil. What about the British presence in the rest of
the world? For centuries the British Empire extended its power all over the globe,
its pervasive influence being evident till today in legacies such as the universal
lingua franca – English – and the most
popular sport on the planet – football.
Supporters
of Brexit argue that the United Kingdom needs to retrieve its sovereignty from
the encroachments of the EU’s courts, tax regulations and, above all, migration mandatory quotas. Arguably, the
ancient specter of invasion – though this time not by fierce warriors but by impoverished
immigrants – prompted the majority of British citizens to opt-out from the EU.
This
shows a lack of historical perspective among the British public, not only
concerning the unique project of the EU, but also regarding their historic
responsibility as heirs of one of the more recent empires in the history of
humankind.
Empires
by definition are meant to rule over other peoples, which more often than not
has led to waging war on them. As with every war, imperial wars can be assessed
under normative frame provided by the Just War tradition. According to Gary
Bass, the latest criteria proposed by this tradition is the idea of a jus post bellum dimension accompanying
those of jus
ad bellum and jus in bello. A
just war is not only that which is fought for the right reasons and in a
civilized fashion; the victors must also make every endeavor to rebuild
institutional structures for the vanquished to have a chance to thrive after
defeat. This is what has been also labeled the ‘responsibility to rebuild’
stage of the ‘responsibility
to protect’ doctrine, after the ‘responsibility to prevent’ and the
‘responsibility to react’ echelons have been exhausted.
To be
sure, there is much blame to assign to the United States in terms of jus post bellum for the ongoing
humanitarian crisis in Iraq and Syria. Without a US invasion against Iraq in
2003 and poor jus post bellum policies
therefrom, there would be no
Islamic State, forcing millions of people to flee their homes and seek
refuge in Europe. But the historic responsibility to rebuild and to nurture
political systems in the region also falls on the former British Empire and the
rest of the deceased European empires, previous rulers in many of the countries
where the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ violently arose, leading to another chapter
in the migration crisis.
An
important part of rebuilding is policing or maintaining security. By abandoning
their historical role as military superpowers – only under the blanket of
security provided by the United States during the last seven decades, as Barack
Obama bluntly
reminded Europeans last April in Hanover – European countries have
neglected their duty to help local governments in providing minimum conditions
for security in the countries formerly colonized by them.
If the
US is to blame for Islamic State, Europeans share their part of the blame for
poverty and instability in their former colonies and for the massive waves of
migrants currently knocking at their doors. As John Rawls pointed
out in his book The Law of Peoples:
“The way a war is fought and the deeds done in ending it live on in the
historical memory of societies and may or may not set the stage for future war.
It is always the duty of statesmanship to take this longer view”. And we may
add: it is the duty of responsible twenty-first century citizenship as well.
Until
this year’s June 23, history walked toward regional integration in the world,
with Europe spearheading the effort. Now the United Kingdom will abandon that
path. Rather than honoring their praiseworthy
humanitarian tradition of sober just
post bellum arrangements such as those deployed after the 1860 crisis in
Syria and Lebanon, the British have decided to follow literally the figurative
advice of their countryman Sir Isaiah Berlin, and fall back on their ‘inner
citadel’, to endure the calamities sent out by destiny.
Only
there is no such thing as an inner citadel for any country in the twenty-first century,
as Cuba and North Korea have begun to learn, let alone for a former empire that
spread its legacy all over the world. Its historic duty lies in helping out
other nations formerly under its yoke.
But
Europeans long ago started to stray from their historic responsibility to
rebuild the worlds they once carved out and destroyed at will. It is a cruel
irony of fate, which would make the goddess Nemesis herself laugh, that they
now complain against the waves of migrants that their historic irresponsibility
has contributed to creating.