The fragmentation of Europe

Britain is a small country. So are the various other European countries that once ran large empires at the expense of overseas populations greatly exceeding their own. How was this possible? How could a smaller country dominate a larger population, and place it at a relative disadvantage so that it could be subordinated and exploited, despite this blatant asymmetry?

Our history books are full of tales of genocidal wars of conquest and epidemics, followed by the catastrophic restructuring of economies, and imperial administrations that use control of those economies to lure populations to collude in their own oppression. But this is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the starting point. The first contact. The key encounter from which everything else radiates out. I'm talking about that first trade deal.

The key mechanism in the establishment of empire is the inversion of the initial asymmetry I mentioned in my opening paragraph. I don't mean just divide and rule. I mean in relation to the currently very topical idea of the trade deal.

The trade deal occurs under circumstances in which the imbalance is inverted. The Europeans don't generally attempt to treat immediately with a representative of an entire territory that dwarfs the realm from which they have just arrived, a representative in a position to dictate terms. There is no "take me to your leader" moment. First they treat with small sub-kingdoms, tribal chiefs, village elders, groups that allow them to re-frame the asymmetry of the encounter to their own advantage.

The minute you end up trying to force your terms on a trading partner who does not have to accept them because you have not imposed an advantageous asymmetry on the negotiation in advance, you end up fighting the Opium Wars, or facing the Nawab of Bengal on the plains of Plassey, or some such similar conflict. But battles and war are expensive and to be avoided if their objectives can be achieved by any other means. Empire is acquired by increment, by the pen rather than the sword, by ink rather than blood, piece by petty piece, and muscles are only flexed for foregone conclusions when the inevitable push back comes. Plassey was not won on the battlefield. It was won in the pavilion, where all the little deals were done that meant that, one by one, all the Nawab's allies abandoned him at the crucial moment.  

Why am I talking about this? Because there are corporations poised to do the same to Europe today. In profound irony, America, a land subdued by Europeans in precisely the incremental way described above, is turning its attention towards Europe, and seeks to dismantle it, so that it can form bilateral agreements with smaller fragments on which it can impose terms it could not force on the European Union as a whole.

Consider, for example, the words of Professor Ted Malloch, President Trump’s expected ambassador to the EU. He says the following:

Ted Malloch: "I am not certain there will be a European Union in which to have such negotiations. Will there be potentially numerous bilateral agreements with various European countries? I think the prospect, again, in a changed political reality, is greater for that."  

Interviewer: "What, do you think the European Union could break apart?" 

Ted Malloch: "Well I think people are talking about the redefinition of the European Union. Whether it's a core number of countries and a periphery that moves aside, key people that stay in the Union and others that fall away, these are decisions that are going to be made by European people in democratic elections over the course of the next eighteen months, and a number of these elections are coming, frankly, as soon as the next few months, so our eyes should be wide open" 

Interviewer: "Do you think the Single Currency can survive?" 

Ted Malloch: "The one thing I would do in 2017 is short the euro. I think it is a currency that is not only in demise, but has a real problem and could in fact collapse in the coming year or year and a half."

Malloch's speculation about the integrity of the very political entity to which he is a candidate to be ambassador, blatantly intended to precipitate the very thing he describes, is scandalously undiplomatic, and he takes every possible advantage of the room for manoeuvre he enjoys from not having been appointed yet, with obvious relish.

It is clear that the USA, with the covert connivance of Russia, will encourage and support every centrifugal force in the European Union during the next eighteen months, including the FN in France and AfD in Germany. The European Union is in great danger. After having made an openly fascist inaugural speech, Trump's regime will now praise every fascist pretender everywhere else who promises the kind of fragmentation from which American corporations can benefit.

The TTIP negotiations with the European Union failed, and we are witnessing the preparation of the ground for Round Two, in which we will see the Sons of TTIP rioting across the continent if we are not careful. And the terms of a Son of TTIP trade deal will be dictated by American corporate lawyers no longer sitting across the table facing counterparts from a trading bloc of 500 million people impervious to threats and inducements, but facing a succession of representatives of weaker and more vulnerable partners over whom they can ride roughshod.

As Theresa May heads across the Atlantic to kow-tow before a misogynistic, fascist, ego-maniacal advocate of torture, we should know she does not bring him Brexit as the basis for a trade negotiation (which is not legally possible until the UK has formally left the EU anyway). She brings him Brexit to offer it as a tribute to the new emperor as he and his corporate puppet-masters prepare to embark on a privatisation spree among Europe's health services.

Rarely has anyone been on the wrong side of history as much as Theresa May is this week.