The Anglo-American Bloc Adopts The Same Foreign Policy

   The foreign policy of the United Kingdom at the end of the Second World War was determined by world conditions and self interest. The British Empire had to be dismantled and the military and economic power of the UK had to be increased. The overriding logic behind dealing with the  new worldwide conditions dictated that former colonies and territories must be freed to become independent states and that it was precisely their new status as nation-states that made them ripe for domination and economic exploitation by London and its ally Washington. The war had joined the United States and the British Empire militarily and politically and the union continued afterwards because the two power centers agreed to continue to keep their military and secret-service institutions united. The anglo-american bloc uniting all the English-speaking countries adopted one and the same foreign policy: create and support nation-states worldwide and exploit any and all wealth within them by making them secure for rich investors and corporations by dominating them with diplomatic and military power.

  The foreign policy of the United States in 1959 with the admission of Hawaii as the 50th state in its union might have continued pointing in its revolutionary direction. It might have freed emerging new nation-states from foreign domination by admitting them also as new states in its union. The United Kingdom did form a Commonwealth of Nations, a voluntary association (at the present time) of 53 independent and sovereign states most of which were former British colonies or dependencies. It has a framework of common values but no real political union. Its common values and goals, while absolutely good in themselves, are also such as would aid a foreign power out to dominate them and exploit them economically: all the Commonwealth nations agree to promote democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism and world peace. It is certain that the British Empire, in spite of its cruel and selfish actions, did unite the world and make it more peaceful and secure. But over five hundred million people in its empire had no political power at all and the millions grouped in the various nation-states of the Commonwealth of Nations possess political institutions incapable of assuring them a just distribution of wealth. Certainly any state in the Commonwealth that joined the American union of states would have had more political power and much greater economic development. But Washington went along with London. It gave up admitting new states and instead supported and dominated nation-states worldwide for its selfish interests instead of continuing to join new  states to its union of sovereign states as it had been doing from 1790 up until 1959.

Daniel McNeill