At its crudest,
it sounds like a school playground invitation to stick with the big bullies
rather than be part of the group of smaller children suffering the
bullying. Only slightly less crudely, it
implies that bigger states can and should get their own way more often and/or
an unfair share of resources. If it
doesn’t mean any of those things, then it’s surely a meaningless phrase.
As a statement
of the way things actually work in the world, it’s difficult to refute the argument. In practice, might usually is “right”; but is
it the way things should work? Is it the
way we want things to be?
I certainly don’t,
and I’m not convinced that maintaining the strength of the bullies – which is
what Cameron is effectively proposing – is the best way of tackling
bullying. It’s not the advice which Cameron
would give to children who were being bullied at school (or at least I don’t
think it is!), so why do so when it comes to the big school of international
politics?
Posts
2 comments:
Isn't the UK more like the kid who hangs about with the bullies fawning over them and egging them on to pick on some other Kid in the hope they don't pick on him.
Great Britain has long been allowed to 'punch above' its weight because of the role this nation played in many of the great wars of the 20th century, most notably, the second world war.
The deference shown by so many other nations even today is, in many ways, entirely understandable. But it will not last for ever.
Scotland and the inhabitants thereof form an integral part of the Great Britain. To lose such a part may well lead to a diminution of deference and a weakening of 'punching power' for both the English and Scottish nations.
Your interpretation of David Cameron's remarks are entirely consistent with the never-ending, non-decision making flip-flopping of some parts of Wales in relation to its status within the UK.
It's a Welsh thing. The rest of us have learnt to live with it. But it seems you cannot.
Post a Comment