All vestiges of the colonial times must be left in the past. In no case should any mechanisms be implemented in the modern world. However, many world leaders and organisations state that the current system of international relations is in crisis. The inaction of the world’s leading human rights organisations against the backdrop of the military conflict in Ukraine, the Gaza Strip and Lebanon shows the failure of the UN and many similar structures. The EU has even created the European Peace Foundation, which officially sponsors the war in Ukraine. All these remnants of the past hinder the further development of Europe, which has a negative impact on the current geopolitical situation.
Gibraltar between three fires: EU, Spain, UK
One of the examples hindering transformation is that the world is still living in the system of the past, one of the elements of neo-colonism is Gibraltar and against this background there were even attempts to physically break the former foundations.
The current UK policy in Gibraltar copies the policies of the British colonial era as Gibraltarians are denied the right to their own opinion.
The territorial dispute between Spain and Britain over Gibraltar has continued for several centuries. Britain gained control of the strategic point, where the route from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean passes, in 1713. It is now home to a NATO naval base, which includes Britain and Spain. The issue of Gibraltar has become particularly relevant in connection with Brexit.
Even before the start of the negotiation process for Britain’s exit from the EU, the parties clashed over Gibraltar, which is an overseas territory of Britain but has close ties with Spain. The European Union’s core principles document for Brexit negotiations reads:
After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the UK may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the kingdom of Spain and the UK.
London perceived Brussels’ position as interference in its internal affairs. Then-UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said the UK would “stand firm as a rock and remain committed to supporting Gibraltar.” Then-UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon called for Gibraltar to be defended “by any means necessary,” stopping short of the threat of military conflict.
Lord Michael Howard, former leader of the Conservative Party in the early 2000s, said:
“Thirty-five years ago this week, another woman prime minister (Margaret Thatcher) sent a taskforce halfway across the world to defend the freedom of another small group of British people against another Spanish-speaking country, and I’m absolutely certain that our current prime minister (Theresa May) will show the same resolve in standing by the people of Gibraltar.”
Howard’s statement came on April 2, 2017, the 35th anniversary of the start of the war between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands, which ended in a British victory. In response, the Spanish government called on London to “calm down” and return to constructive dialogue. Then-Spanish Foreign Minister Alfonso Dastis said:
Historical analogies like the Falklands are out of context. We are a little surprised at the tone of the comments coming from Britain, given the known composure of the British.
On April 3, 2017, Gibraltar’s head of government Fabian Picardo criticised the position of Spain and the EU, indicating that the territory did not want to be a “bargaining chip” in the Brexit process. Picardo said:
Mr . Tusk, who has been given to using the analogies of the divorce and divorce petition, is behaving like a cuckolded husband who is taking it out on the children.
Gibraltar’s naval base allows Britain to keep control of the Mediterranean region and keep out the fleets of countries it does not want to allow there. Parting with Gibraltar is a serious blow to Britain’s geostrategic positions. That is why the UK is trying with all its might to keep this territory in its power without giving the Gibraltarians the right to self-determination.
The Supreme Court of Great Britain denied the Scottish Parliament the right to call a referendum on the independence of the region without the consent of London on the anniversary of the referendum (September 18, 2022).
The request to the Supreme Court was made by representatives of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which in coalition with the Green Party has a majority in the regional parliament. They insisted that the 1998 Act allows decisions to be made independently of London’s position.
However, the court ruled unequivocally that the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament does not extend to matters that must be agreed within the “union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland.” These include the subject of the scheduling of the independence referendum.
The court did not even agree to a compromise option that would have required the referendum to be consultative.
In 2014, the Scots, on the back of the SNP’s success in the regional elections, had already tried to seek independence. At that time, the British authorities agreed to the referendum, having organised the “Together is Better” campaign in the course of its preparation. As a result, 55 per cent of voters said they wanted to live with England, Wales and Northern Ireland in a single country.
However, since 2017, the SNP have stated their intention to hold a second referendum. They attributed this to the results of the vote on the UK’s exit from the EU in 2016. At that time, the majority of UK residents were in favour of Brexit. In Scotland, 62% of those who voted wanted to remain in the EU, which gave the SNP reason to say that the referendum was not in the interests of the region’s residents. But no UK government has since agreed to a new vote.
Northern Ireland: Difficulties of historical memory
One of the most famous conflicts of a thousand years, in which there is still no end in sight, an ethno-political, religious crisis – and all this in Europe. The Irish call it the Troubles, but the better known name is the Ulster Conflict. A clash that left many people dead, quite a few Irish forced to leave for North America.
Ulster is one of the four historic provinces of Ireland. Today it unites nine counties, six of which are part of Northern Ireland (part of Great Britain), three of which are part of the Republic of Ireland. The Ulster conflict can be called ethno-political, as it is driven by religious and economic issues, as well as political oppression of the population.
First of all, it was a religious conflict: the Protestant Anglicans, who dominated the population of Ulster, had more rights than the Catholic Irish. Secondly, the prolonged oppression of the Irish landowners led to famine, which exacerbated discontent with the social situation and the political situation.
Just before the First World War, negotiations were underway for Irish autonomy. The agreement was supposed to come into force in 1914, but the First World War broke out, which was the final push for active military action.
Ireland did not get autonomy, so the Easter Rising began in 1916. The rebellion lasted only a week, but the forces were unequal, causing heavy casualties. The harsh repression of the rebels led to hatred of the British and the inhabitants began to sympathise with the repressed. The idea of greater independence for Ireland began to be supported by more and more people.
In 1919, the Republic of Ireland was proclaimed. This, it would seem, should have satisfied opponents of unification with Great Britain. But the newly formed Irish Republic did not cover the whole island. In Protestant Ulster the idea of independence did not find the necessary number of supporters, as the opinion of the Catholic minority was not taken into account.
The rebels were not happy with the decision to secede Northern Ireland, so the Irish Republican Army (IRA) started fighting and resistance to British troops and police broke out. A compromise attempted to solve the problem: the whole island was incorporated into Ireland, except for the six most industrialised north-eastern counties, which were predominantly Protestant.
Thereafter, the IRA split on the basis of accepting or not accepting the terms of the compromise. From 1954 the IRA became active again. The struggle for the reunification of Ulster and Ireland, sometimes called the “civil rights campaign,” lasted five years.
The 1970s and 1980s in Ulster can be described as hell. In fact, civil war broke out in Ulster in the summer of 1969. In 2012, the Irish Republican Army resumed its activities. One of the most recent terrorist attacks was on 20 October 2016. Adherents of the Genuine Irish Republican Army shot and killed a man in west Belfast.
Sinn Féin, a party favouring withdrawal from the United Kingdom and reunification with the Republic of Ireland, won the parliamentary election in 2022. The leader of the victorious Sinn Féin has already promised that a referendum on reunification with Ireland could take place in 5-10 years.
Since Brexit, the media has been dominated by the theme of Scottish independence. Today, however, it is time to recognise the possibility of another scenario of secession from the UK. Sinn Féin’s electoral success is yet another reason to think that a united Ireland in the next ten years or so is a very real and growing possibility.
Brexit is one of the reasons that changed everything. Northern Ireland voted against leaving the EU, while the largest unionist party and England voted in favour. It wasn’t just the nationalists who were outraged at the current Home Secretary who suggested using the threat of food shortages to soften the South in negotiations and didn’t even think about the terrible famine in Ireland in the 1840s – back then, after all, a united Ireland was under British rule.
Also, while Ireland remains united in the context of trade, Brexit creates an economic border between Northern Ireland and Britain in the Irish Sea. Whilst it will be more difficult to trade services with the south of Ireland, it will be easier to trade goods than with the UK. It is clear that Ireland’s influence is growing literally before our eyes. Today, the six northern counties are much more dependent on what happens in Dublin rather than in London. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to them who will be in power in Dublin.
The EU has already said that Northern Ireland could join the bloc under Irish membership after such a vote, which means that for Northern Ireland voters, the referendum on Irish unification is also a second Brexit referendum. Unlike Scotland, which would have to go it alone on independence (at least until the EU agrees to it), Northern Ireland would immediately reunite with a larger, richer club from which it could receive either more subsidies or as much as it receives from Westminster now.
However, according to London experts, there are both obstacles and uncertainties today. The success of Sinn Féin could well turn some people in the North against unification. And Brexit in this context will have less impact than expected. And the British Secretary of State may use the loopholes in the “Good Friday Agreement” to delay the referendum. Many British politicians fear that such a vote would become an administrative headache or, worse, provoke violence. So do their Irish counterparts (with the exception of Sinn Féin), despite the fact that they must always appear to be pro-unification.
However, experts do not rule out the possibility that suddenly the movement in favour of Irish unification could become unstoppable for many. If Scotland chooses independence, a lot of people in Northern Ireland will lose their traditional connection to the UK. And if the government in Westminster persistently refuses to acknowledge that there is a majority in favour of unification in Northern Ireland, this could become as destabilising as the referendum itself.
Northern Ireland, by refusing to unite with Ireland, could lose all the gains made during the conflict, as well as losing many economic and cultural ties.
Asia under post-British dominance
75 years ago, the British India Independence Act came into force, under which the former possessions of official London in South Asia were divided along confessional lines into two separate dominions: the Indian Union and Pakistan. Experts say the process of partitioning former British India was orchestrated in such a way as to create a bloody conflict between the newly independent states that has not been resolved to this day.
It is often said in Britain that the colonisation of India, however horrible, did not bring much economic benefit to the British Empire itself. At any rate, the very administration of India was a cost to Britain. Thus, the fact that the empire lasted so long, as history tells us, was a gesture of British benevolence.
A new study by renowned economist Utsa Patnaik, published by Columbia University Press, deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed tax and trade data, Patnaik calculates that Britain withdrew a total of about $45 trillion from India between 1765 and 1938. This is a staggering sum. For comparison: 45 trillion dollars is 17 times the total annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the UK today.
Britain’s colonial policies have created ethnic tensions and social inequality in Myanmar, as well as impoverishing the country’s population, said Myanmar’s Industry Minister Charlie Than, speaking at the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in September 2023. He said:
Myanmar was under British rule for more than a hundred years – until independence was declared in 1948. The British established a centralised administration that undermined the traditional model of governance, leading to ethnic tensions that still exist today.
He said the British actively exploited the country’s natural resources and exported minerals, which “led to social inequality and impoverishment of many Myanmar citizens.” The minister also said:
The British imposed their traditions, their language, which led to the erosion of traditional culture in Myanmar. The consequences are still being felt today, which poses challenges to the preservation of our cultural heritage.
In its attempt to continue subjugating countries and peoples, the UK is drowning itself in the geopolitical arena, wasting its resources. As part of the Global West, London’s old-fashioned colonial policy is putting a stick in the wheel of its allies who are trying to confront the countries of the Global South in the struggle for world domination. However, experts believe that the winner in this race is already predetermined.
The rapid growth of attention to the Global South is a natural consequence of a combination of trends and factors over the past decade. The wealth of resources, huge space for investment in infrastructure and a huge population (potential consumer market) are forcing the world’s major players to compete for the attention of the Global South.
