Another fake news item comes in the description of a Theresa May speech she yesterday held in front of U.S. Republicans. The BBC headlines: Theresa May: UK and US cannot return to 'failed' interventions. Sky News likewise headlines: Theresa May warns US and UK cannot return to 'failed' interventions. From the BBC piece:
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said Mrs May was signalling there would be no more wars like those in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan, and it was significant that she had chosen her US speech to signal such a shift.
BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said it was a hugely significant speech, arguably the biggest by a UK PM in the US since Tony Blair's 1999 speech in Chicago advocating armed interventionism against dictators - something repudiated by Mrs May.
The claims by these BBC commentators are ludicrous. May did not call for less intervention as those comments make it seem. Indeed, she argued for more intervention. She argued against interventions for "values" (which anyway were always just a propaganda ploy) but strongly called for intervention for "interests". She of course would not like such interventions to 'fail'. From her speech:
It is in our interests – those of Britain and America together – to stand strong together to defend our values, our interests and the very ideas in which we believe.
This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over. But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene. We must be strong, smart and hard-headed. And we must demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests.
Shorter: 'It is in the U.S. (and our ass-kissing country's) interest to defend its interests by intervening for the sake of its interests.'
May destroys the fake facade of liberal interventionism, the "responsibility to protect" nonsense, and [tacitly] argues for wars of aggression for purely monetary or geopolitical reasons -- "interests" as she calls it.
That is not, as the BBC claims, "signalling that there would be no more wars like those in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan" but the opposite. There will be more such wars and all will predictably end with bad consequences for those invaded as well as for those who invade.
I take issue with b calling Britain an ass-kissing country in relation to the USA, although I think the charge sticks when it comes to Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab energy kingdoms. The British government has been manipulating the U.S. one for so long they have it down to an art form.
So as to May's claim that together the U.K. and U.S. can lead the world, what she means is that with British brains and American muscle they can co-lead. With the British government supervising, of course.