Posted 131 days ago
I started my subscription to The World Today this year (January 2021), and I have been slowly picking up its bizarre tone: an odd blend between international liberalism and British nationalism. For example, Peters writes the following:
Alignment with Britain, which is fleshing out its global role after leaving the EU, may provide some of the strategic leverage that the US requires. With British support in UK-hosted forums such as the G7 and COP26, Kerry would be better positioned to call for ambitious climate targets, particularly in countries that have not agreed to sufficient climate action.
There is this constant effort to place Britain, after Brexit, back into the international spotlight. I don't think the US should take this advice. Europe is going to move away from Britain as much as possible, and Britain's already diminished influence on the international stage will continue to decline. If the US is truly hoping to continue its "hegemony" or international power, it honestly doesn't make any sense to keep pursuing policies with Britain. In fact, if I were Europe and the US, I would be shifting as many of the summits out of Britain. Just because it was once an powerful empire does not mean it should still have sway on the international stage. If it wants to isolate itself from Europe, so be it, but the US should turn its sights more towards the mainland for pursuing influential policy.
My point here is to show The World Today's obvious bias towards British international influence. It calls for liberal order, but pushes it under the spectre that Britain should have power and influence in that order. Obviously, if I was British, I would want the same, but they must realize how empty this suggestions seem as an outsider.