‹ Back

By Alek Yerbury

Party Leader, NRP

 

One of the common problems within politics in general, but especially the sphere of Nationalist politics, is the absence of any clear attitude to foreign policy. This is partly deliberate, as the perception is that by ignoring such a divisive issue it limits the scope for disagreement, but this view isn’t workable. The general public have an expectation that there will at least be some direction with regards to foreign policy. Thus, it is necessary for me, in my capacity as Leader of the National Rebirth Party, to identify this direction.

 

The three foreign policy spheres which require the most attention from a British perspective are firstly, the Middle East (given the tendency for conflict and political upheaval there to have cascading effects elsewhere), secondly Northern Ireland (which must be considered foreign policy as much as domestic due to the involved of the Republic of Ireland in addressing it), and Europe/the European Union.

 

Throughout all of this, it must be viewed through the lens of the National Agenda as a whole, particularly Demand #4:

 

“We demand that no foreign treaty, alliance, war or undertaking be entered into or continued unless it serves the interests of the National Community. This includes the distribution of British money to foreign nations.”

 

 

The Middle East

 

The Middle East has always been a region where great powers have held interest, either as a trade route or, more recently, a fountain of industrial resources. The three most pressing issues in the Middle East that presently exist are:

 

Firstly, the conflict between Israel - which is overwhelmingly backed by the West and is the only country in the region which is not majority Muslim, and the only country which functions as an ethnocentric state - and the rest of the Islamic world. This conflict is one in which neither side is truly blameless. The elimination of Israel as a country OR the elimination of the Palestinian territories would automatically mean an influx of undesirable refugees into Europe, and therefore the only long-term solution to this issue is a two-state one, in some shape or form. The unconditional support being given to either side by some third parties has done nothing except make this more difficult. It is a conflict which cannot be resolved permanently without pressure from the wider world.

 

Secondly, the political instability of Middle-Eastern countries, which are frequently wracked by revolutions, uprising and regime changes. This occurred on a large scale since the Arab Spring a decade ago, and the most notorious example is the Syrian Civil War which stared in 2011 and has only recently started winding down. The devastation that this political instability causes leads to severe knock-on effects for Europe, most prominently the mass exodus of people who they impose themselves on Britain, France, Germany and other wealthy European countries. The political instability has been exasperated by the tendency of previous governments here to support revolutionaries or regime changes based on personal benefit, ideological aims (which have no tangible value), and coercion by other western powers who also desire the same thing.

 

Thirdly, the flow of trade and resources through the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea/Suez Canal. It is a major trade route and an influential portion of global oil and gas traffic transits through them. Therefore lawlessness, militancy, terrorism, piracy and political disruption are major concerns. It demonstrates the danger of our national economy becoming dependent on resources from this part of the world, or becoming excessively dependent on trade that must transit through there. At the same time, it will never be possible (or even desirable) to eliminate trade and resource flow through those passages, and so policing of the seas there by international agreement is likely to continue to be necessary for centuries to come.

 

Therefore, foreign policy in the Middle East, based on the current situation as I assess it, must involve the following:

• That a functional government is inherently better than no government at all, and therefore displacing any regime in exchange for a failed state is inherently a mistake.

• That there is a utility to the existence of a ‘Jewish/Zionist’ state and a theocratic Islamic state somewhere in the world, in the sense that it gives us a place to offload both Zionists and Jihadists from Europe.

• The general attitude towards conflicts in the region must be containment, that is, preventing any spread to other countries or regions.

• Domestic economic policies must be driven towards eliminating any dependency we have on the Middle East or its resources, so as to make containment easier and minimise any need to engage with the region beyond that.

• That protection of trade routes through the Red Sea and Persian Gulf will continue to be important even if we reduce our dependency on resources in the region, due to their relevance to trade to and from Asia.

• That any state which is governed by a form of religious supremacism must never be allowed access to nuclear weapons, and should be limited as much as possible in its access to any kind of military technology beyond that which it requires to maintain its own government.

 

 

Northern Ireland

 

The situation in Ulster must be viewed through the prism of foreign policy, because it cannot be resolved or managed without the involved of the Republic of Ireland, for very obvious reasons.

 

As it currently stands, Northern Ireland’s ‘elected’ government is capable of doing very little. The province is run on a day to day basis by civil servants. The endemic problem of Northern Ireland is its sectarian politics and division bewteen one half of the population that wants continued union with Great Britain, and the other half that wants union with the Republic of Ireland. The division of Ireland was a solution to an immediate problem, but it has created a century long issue that has never been resolved one way or the other.

 

Aside from the sectarian divisions, Northern Ireland, like the rest of Britain, has the same social and economic problems that need addressing. Even issues like mass immigration, which have previously avoided the province, are starting to appear. The same mechanisms that we propose to remedy the rest of Britain would be equally applicable in Northern Ireland.

 

With all this in mind, the attitude towards Ulster should be the following:

 

• That the problems Northern Ireland faces socially and economically could not be solved by its re-unification with Ireland, because the government in Dublin is afflicted with exactly the same problems as the government in Westminster.

• That union with Britain (or Ireland in the case of re-unification) is only a workable outcome if it aligns with the overwhelming, unchallengeable majority of the population there. Swapping out government from Westminster to Dublin tomorrow would do simply reverse the roles of the sectarian conflict.

• That union with Britain is only going to continue to be in the self-determined interests of the people of Ulster if the British government, through the implementation of a genuine National Agenda, can create a vision and framework for a better and more prosperous future, that the people of Ulster would actively want to share in.

• That the exact same attitude can be applied to the entirety of Ireland. If the people of Ireland as a whole wanted union with Great Britain, this would be a great step for our people who share such similar blood, BUT it could only ever happen and be sustained if the people of Ireland actually wanted it of their own choice. There could never be a repeat of the attitude of centuries past whereby Ireland was treated like an imperial dominion.

 

Europe and the EU

 

The decision to leave the European Union was driven by an understandable desire to restore national sovereignty. Since this happened, what we have seen is a form of exit-in-name-only. Britain may technically have withdrawn from the EU, but all of the things that led the British people to want to leave to begin with have either been ignored or actively worsened. The worst offenders have been immigration (which actually increased, and most of it from outside Europe), and the further destruction of farming and fishing industries (which were promoted as being protected by leaving the EU).

 

Since then, there has been a significant number of people who have been pushing for Britain to return to the EU, some of whom wish to do so purely because leaving did not address the problems that led to Brexit to begin with. There have also been hardline campaigners against putting that idea on the table, for the same reasons, and because they recognise that leaving the EU was a necessary step towards national sovereignty over the economy, borders and politics.

 

Countries are not people. They cannot be treated like friends or enemies, but as entities with their own interests. This is the approach required when dealing with Europe. It is not necessary for us to be in the European Union in order to have a mutually beneficial relationship with Europe. It may or may not be necessary to be party to entities such as the ECHR. It entirely depends on whether membership of those bodies prevents us from implementing the National Agenda in its entirety. It has to be noted that when one has sufficient economic, political or military clout, the ability to dictate the terms of an international relationship increases, and thus Britain does not need to fear the EU or any European country if it is able to wield such clout through its own national policies.

 

The approach to dealing with Europe, the European Union, and its related bodies, must then take into account the following:

• That Britain should never again join the European Union

• That for as long as the European Union exists, Britain will have to deal with it in terms of trade and customs policy as a singular entity instead of dealing with individual countries.

• That it is perfectly acceptable to reduce our interdependence on trade and relations with mainland Europe, but only if we can simultaneously bolster our relations with entities beyond the EU, including China and Russia.

• That in order to function as a state independent from the EU, we must work towards a much greater degree of economic, military and political self-sufficiency than we currently have.

• That international bodies such as the ECHR, WTO, NATO should neither be entered into nor withdrawn from for their own sake, but should strictly be participated in only when it serves the National interest.

 

Summary

 

In overview, the implementation of the National Agenda of the National Rebirth Party cannot be done in a vacuum. Isolationism and wilful ignorance of the rest of the world and its affairs serves no purpose, and would almost certainly have the opposite effect as intended. It is vital that a party which seeks, in the long-term, the formation of legitimate government understands a basic framework for dealing with other states and foreign affairs, and has the diplomatic ability to implement that framework. The British people did not become powerful through living in isolation and ignorance. We have always taken a pro-active stance in the world, and therefore out future must be no different.