THE HEADLINE is deliberately misleading as I propose to speak about an emerging trend in the politics of places that are for the most part not islands, in a geographical sense, but are nonetheless framing their politics in a manner that is reminiscent of an island orientation.
Top of the list is the United Kingdom which, under the leadership of Theresa May, qualifies for this top spot for reasons including the fact it is the only one in the group that is a geographic island.
Historically, Britain seemed to have understood the limitations of its “islandness” and pursued a policy of expansion under the guise of colonialism. As the era of decolonisation emerged, Britain’s expansionist policies were framed around the conversion of remaining colonies into overseas territories, and after 1973 the pursuit of the EEC which helped Britain to overcome its island limitations.
Ironically, it was a conservative government that took Britain into the EEC and one presumes this is because that government understood Britain would ultimately be stronger if it stood together with its neighbours and exploited a potential market worth US$16.5 trillion versus the British market worth only US$3.4 trillion.
When one listens to May, it becomes clear she is talking island politics
in response to the population’s decision to leave the European Union. She argued that it was important for Britain to take back control of its borders, and since the remaining EU leaders had argued one could not have access to the single market without a freedom of movement, she agreed to walk away from both.
While she does want to seek a good trade arrangement with the remaining EU members, she has threatened to set Britain up as an offshore tax haven if these negotiations are unsuccessful. This policy orientation is, of course,
familiar to us who inhabit islands.
May has struck a curious alliance with the freshly minted president of the United States, Donald Trump, who is also promoting a nationalist stance. Trump supports May’s intention to exit the EU and has also identified with the founder of the UK Independence Movement, Nigel Farage. Trump promises a swift trade agreement as a sign of his solidarity.
Trump also promises to project American’s “islandness” in every possible way to the point of buildinga wall along the southern border which would represent a physical barrier that rectifies the geographical feature that makes the United States part of the American continent.
Trump has not yet spoken of physically closing the northern border; however, he has signalled his intention to smash the North American Free Trade Area which seeks to facilitate a greater integration of trade along that continent.
His attitude to NAFTA is consistent with his attitude to the TPP and even NATO, which is basically summed up in the phrase “America first”. This mantra has both domestic and foreign components; however, the most distasteful to date is his ban on Muslims from certain countries, which is consistent with the idea islands can discriminate against whom they like.
Across the pond, there’s another emerging “island” called France where far right candidate Marine Le Pen recently launched her programme entitled Made in France that promises the French will guard their own borders, spend francs instead of euros and their defence would revolve around the Front leader’s plans and become less Europeanised.
Immigration would be controlled with limits placed on Muslim migrants and a policy of French priority would give way to equal treatment for European migrants in areas such as housing.
The fact her policies are so strikingly similar to that which was embraced by voters in America and seem now also to be the intention of the British government, does make one pause and ask whether her time has also now arrived.
Naturally, this trend worries people who share my world, view that there are no “islands” in this world and I often support this contention with a quote from Madeline Albright that “there is no such thing as purely domestic policy”.
The pursuit of a nationalist agenda therefore seems to be developmentally counterproductive, but more important there is a striking similarity to the programme of nationalism which was pursued under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party in the 1930s, and we all know how that ended.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: peter.w.wickham@gmail.com
