Was it for this craven display that London endured the Blitz?
This was evident last week during the
80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (V-E) Day
. Narratives honed around such commemorations gloss over fragility and uncertainty as the ghost and words of British wartime prime minister
Winston Churchill
are invoked to emphasise a uniquely resilient British spirit.
One of the French founding fathers of the postwar European integration project, Jean Monnet, suggested that what was believed to differentiate Britain from the rest of western Europe after V-E Day was the lack of a 'need to exorcise history'.
The historian Tony Judt, in his sweeping tome Postwar (2005), elaborated on this, writing: 'In France the war had revealed everything that was wrong with the nation's political culture; in Britain it had seemed to confirm everything that was right and good about national institutions and habits.'
READ MORE
But myth, mirage and selective history were also part of Britain's narrative and condition. Along with his focus on defeating Hitler, Churchill's Victorian mind was saturated with imperialism and his career tarnished with the crimes that went with that. Yet the wartime saviour iconography around Churchill – the man who united Britons – prevailed.
His memory was invoked for an additional reason last week during the V-E Day anniversary as the White House – where
Donald Trump
after his election promptly insisted on the return of Jacob Epstein's bust of Churchill to the Oval Office, originally gifted by the British government – and Downing Street trumpeted their trade deal to cement their 'special relationship'. Historically this union has been presented as grounded not just in free trade, but in democracy and the rule of law.
Such a perspective was not just born of the
second World War
; as far back as the 1890s, John Hay, then US ambassador to Britain, said that both countries were 'bound by a tie we did not forge and which we cannot break; we are joint ministers of the same sacred mission of liberty'.
Over a century later, in 2001,
George W Bush
described the two countries' relationship as 'the rock upon which all dictators this century have perished'.
Such historic assertions have been hollowed out beyond meaning. Few would envy Britain managing a US president who is a deranged dictator, but it is a measure of the current international cowardice in dealing with Trump that British prime minister
Keir Starmer
, a former human rights lawyer, heralded last week's announcement of the trade deal as a 'historic, fantastic day'.
Quickly after Starmer's display of cravenness, he denounced
Vladimir Putin
due to the war on
Ukraine
. Europe, he suggested, was 'stepping up' on the anniversary of V-E Day to secure Ukraine's future and European leaders were united with the US and 'are calling Putin out'. This is because of
Russia
's 'deadly attacks on civilians' in Ukraine.
At the same time, the Israeli policy of genocide and imposing famine in
Gaza
is tolerated, as the
Israel Defense Forces
spends US money on its sickening policy of annihilation.
The relentless focus on trade has skewed any determination to confront the terrifying echoes of the 1930s and this is something that Europeans should be much more vocal about given that the rationale for the creation of what became the
European Union
was to ensure the prevention of a third world war.
As Tony Judt was to lament in 2010 about the long-term loss of focus, 'we have substituted endless commerce for public purpose and expect no higher aspirations from our leaders'.
Such a pursuit also relegates climate change policy, despite its devastating global consequences, to the margins, because selling cars and keeping quiet about fascism is more convenient.
It is delusional to think American democracy is robust enough to withstand the excesses of an elected leader.
As historian Ian Kershaw points out, in 1930, three army officers with Nazi sympathies were put on trial in Germany charged with preparing to commit high treason. Hitler told the court in Leipzig his movement would come to power legally, but would then shape the state as its members saw fit and that 'heads would roll.'
The eliding of Trump's version of that involves normalising his contemptuous autocracy. It also emboldens other leaders internationally to indulge their worst instincts.
Was it for this that London endured the Blitz? As wartime prime minister, Churchill made himself Minister of Defence, sat on military committees and replaced generals he regarded as below par.
When Alan Francis Brooke became military chief of staff in late 1941, things shifted. 'When I thump the table and push my face towards him, what does he do?' Churchill recorded. 'He thumps the table harder and glares at me.'
Churchill needed to be restrained. Trump, however, is facing no table thumpers, at home or abroad.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Trump claims victory on trade - but EU had little choice
In many respects US President Donald Trump achieved his aims by introducing a swath of tariffs with America's main trading partners around the world. The European Union has a population of 448 million compared to the US which has 340 million. However, the US economy is larger. Many have been surprised at the way Donald Trump has appeared to be able to dictate terms to Europe. His announcement yesterday that he would commence the new tariff arrangements from 7 August appeared to be his decision with little input from the EU. President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen has defended the deal, which will see tariffs of 15% imposed on EU goods. There are two reasons why the EU did not want a full blown trade war with Mr Trump. Firstly, European businesses were opposed to a prolonged period of tit-for-tat tariffs with enormously damaging consequences. Secondly, if relations with Mr Trump soured, he could threaten to row back on defence commitments. The EU is highly reliant on the US for arm supplies, funding for NATO and military support for Ukraine. But looking at scale of tariffs imposed on other countries the EU's 15% does not seem too damaging compared to India's 25%, Canada's 35% and Switzerland's 39%. Most of the US' main trading partners have rates of 15% or 20%. The exception is the UK's 10% tariff. However, this is not an all-inclusive rate. In other words, other rates can be added to it. Nor does Britain have a written agreement capping pharmaceutical tariffs unlike the EU. It is worth bearing in mind that while tariffs on European goods go up, Mr Trump stated the EU would be "opening up their countries at zero tariffs" for US exports. Unanswered questions From the Irish point of view there are still many unanswered questions. There is no agreement on alcohol exports to the US. That sector was expected to be covered by a zero-for-zero tariff arrangement but that has not yet been confirmed. This is critical for Ireland's whiskey industry and the EU's wine exports. It seems clear that pharmaceuticals and computer chips will face tariffs of up to 15%, but the timing is still uncertain. Both are subject of so-called Section 232 investigations because Mr Trump believes the US' use of imports is a national security issue. Tánaiste Simon Harris said the tariffs for sectors under investigation will not become clear until those processes are concluded. For pharmaceuticals that is expected to happen in two weeks. But the fact that the EU-US agreement won't exceed 15% does provide some clarity for the industry. Bank of Ireland pointed out that drugs are relatively inelastic, which means if prices go up people still buy them because they are prescribed by doctors. The new swath of tariffs come at a time when the dollar has been weakening and making EU exports to the US more expensive at the worst possible time. Then there is the question of what this all means for the Irish economy. In March, the Department of Finance and the Economic Social Research Institute published research on the impact of tariffs on the Irish economy. It looks at a range of scenarios from tariffs of 10% to 25%. Based on that analysis, officials at the Department of Finance told business leaders yesterday that the economy would continue to expand, but at a slower pace than previously expected. Employment will grow but at a slower rate. The Government will now have to decide how all this will impact the Budget in October. But while Mr Trump may believe he has achieved his aims on tariffs, in the long run his actions carry the risk of higher inflation in the US and undermining the American economy.
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Global markets reel from White House's latest tariffs order
Global markets have reeled after US President Donald Trump's latest wave of tariffs against nearly all his country's trading partners as governments face a seven-day deadline before higher duties take effect. Mr Trump announced late Thursday that dozens of economies, including the European Union, will face new tariff rates of between 10 and 41%. However, implementation will be on 7 August rather than Friday as previously announced, the White House said. This gives governments a window to strike deals with Washington setting more favourable conditions. Neighbouring Canada, one of the biggest US trade partners, was hit with 35% levies, up from 25%, effective Friday. But with wide-ranging, current exemptions remain in place. The tariffs are a demonstration of the economic power that Mr Trump believes will put US exporters in a stronger position, while encouraging domestic manufacturing by keeping out foreign imports. But the approach has raised fears of inflation and other economic fallout in the world's biggest economy. Stock markets in Hong Kong, London and New York slumped as they digested the turmoil, while weak US employment data added to worries. Mr Trump ordered the Commissioner of the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics Erika McEntarfer to be fired after the data showed weaker than expected employment growth in July. Mr Trump's actions come as debate rages over how best to steer the US economy, with the Federal Reserve this week deciding to keep interest rates unchanged, despite massive political pressure from the White House to cut. Data yesterday showed US job growth will miss expectations for July, while unemployment ticked up to 4.2% from 4.1%. On Wall Street, the S&P 500 dropped 1.6%, while the Nasdaq tumbled 2.2%. Mr Trump raised duties on around 70 economies from a current 10% level imposed in April when he unleashed "reciprocal" tariffs citing unfair trade practices. The new, steeper levels listed in an executive order vary by trading partner. Any goods "transshipped" through other jurisdictions to avoid US duties would be hit with an additional 40% tariff, the order said. But the president's duties have a distinctly political slant, with the president using separate tariffs to pressure Brazil to drop the trial of his far-right ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro. He also warned of trade consequences for Canada, which faces a different set of duties, after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. In targeting Canada, the White House cited its failure to "cooperate in curbing the ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs" - although Canada is not a major source of illegal narcotics. By contrast, Mr Trump gave more time to Mexico, delaying for 90 days a threat to increase its tariffs from 25% to 30%. But exemptions remain for a wide range of Canadian and Mexican goods entering the United States under an existing North American trade pact. Mr Carney said his government was "disappointed" with the latest rates hike but noted that with exclusions the US average tariff on Canadian goods remains one of the lowest among US trading partners. With questions hanging over the effectiveness of bilateral trade deals struck, including with the EU and Japan, the outcome of Mr Trump's overall plan remains uncertain. "No doubt about it - the executive order and related agreements concluded over the past few months tears up the trade rule book that has governed international trade since World War II," Wendy Cutler, a senior vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, said. Mr Trump said yesterday that he would consider distributing a tariff "dividend" to Americans. Notably excluded from the latest tariff announcement was China, which is in the midst of negotiations with the United States. Washington and Beijing at one point brought tit-for-tat tariffs to triple-digit levels, but have agreed to temporarily lower these duties and are working to extend their truce. Those who managed to strike deals with the US to avert steeper threatened levies included Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea and the European Union.
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Mood shifts on Israel-Gaza, but will it bring change?
There's no doubt the mood has shifted on the Israel-Gaza war. In the past week, three powerful G7 nations - France, the UK and Canada – announced their intention to recognise the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly in September. That means four of the five permanent members of the Security Council - the UN's highest decision-making body - will join the more than 140 member states that already recognise Palestine, leaving the United States diplomatically isolated on the issue. With pressure mounting over starvation in Gaza, the United Nations held a major conference this week aimed at reviving the "two-state solution" for Israel and Palestine, a decades-old idea favoured by most of the world, but largely written off as dead in the water - until now. Boycotting the two-day event, the Israeli ambassador called it "a circus" while the US State Department said it was "unproductive and untimely". But even here, in the US, where support for Israel has been an unshakeable article of faith across the political spectrum, but especially in the Republican Party, key allies of President Donald Trump have begun to dissent. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the MAGA congresswoman from Georgia, took to X to voice her opposition to American policy on Israel. "It's the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza," she wrote. That made her the first Republican in Congress to call Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide. A handful of Democrats have already used that term. Previously, Ms Taylor Greene introduced an amendment to cut funding for Israel's missile defence system – although that failed to garner any real support in Washington. But outside of Congress, fellow MAGA leaders - including the former White House strategist Steve Bannon and the right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson - have been damning of US policy in the Middle East, seeing it at odds with their "America First" doctrine. Mr Bannon – though still a staunch supporter of Israel – has little time for the current prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he once called a "bald-faced liar". Mr Carlson criticised US aid to Israel, arguing the money would be better spent at home to tackle the opioid epidemic, among other domestic crises. He also slammed the recent Israeli airstrike on a Catholic Church in Gaza City. "They're not allowed to use my tax dollars to bomb churches," he told a US podcast. "I'll put up with a lot of stuff, but I don't understand how any Christian leader in the United States can sit by and not say something about that," he said. Scepticism of American involvement in "forever wars" is certainly a hallmark of the MAGA movement. Indeed, last year, ahead of the election that returned Mr Trump to power, I reported from his rally at New York's iconic Madison Square Gardens. During an Israel-focused speech beamed onto the giant outdoor screen, a man in the crowd shouted, "why are you talking about Israel – what about America?". In another post on X this week, Ms Greene pressed that case. "Most Americans that I know don't hate Israel and we are not antisemitic at all," she wrote. "We are beyond fed up with being told that we have to fix the world's problems, pay for the world's problems, and fight all the world's wars while Americans are struggling to survive even though they work every day". Then there is President Trump himself, who this week made headlines when he contradicted Mr Netanyahu's denial of starvation in Gaza. Asked if he agreed with Mr Netanyahu's assessment, Mr Trump said: "Based on television, I would say not particularly, because those children look very hungry". "They have to get food and safety right now," he added. The following day, a UN-backed report found that the "worst-case" famine scenario was unfolding across Gaza. Mr Trump dispatched his Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff and Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee to inspect aid distribution sites run by American contractors under the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The GHF sites, set up to replace UN aid distribution networks which the US and Israel said were hijacked by Hamas, have become the scene of near-daily mass killings of starving Palestinians, prompting international outrage. The French Foreign Minister, Jean-Noel Barrot, co-chairing this week's conference, called it a "bloodbath". Last weekend, a group of Democratic senators wrote to the US Secretary of State Marc Rubio urging him to "immediately cease" all US funding for GHF and resume support for UN-led operations, with increased oversight. Adding to the pressure, a former US contractor with GHF gave an interview to the BBC saying that in his entire career, he had "never witnessed the level of brutality and use of indiscriminate and unnecessary force against a civilian population, an unarmed, starving population". Anthony Aguilar, a United States Army veteran, dismissed by the GHF as a disgruntled ex-employee, continued to speak out on US and international media platforms. Gaza aid today, he said, was like The Hunger Games. 'Turning point' With the mood apparently shifting in Washington and across the world, diplomats gathered for the UN's two-state solution conference this week feeling like the momentum was behind them. "It can and must serve as a decisive turning point," the UN Secretary General António Guterres said in his opening remarks. "One that catalyses irreversible progress towards ending the occupation and realising our shared aspiration for a viable two-state solution," he said. The sentiment was echoed over the following two days and the conference's final declaration won more support than diplomats initially expected. The ambitious seven-page document called for an immediate ceasefire, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, recognition of Palestine by countries that have not yet done so, normalisation of relations with Israel, the disarmament of Hamas, and a commitment to a political solution with the Palestinian Authority, subject to major reforms in control of Gaza and the West Bank. Significantly, it was the first time a UN document, signed by Arab nations, officially condemned the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on 7 October, 2023. But two critical players – Israel and the United States – were not there. In their absence, was this a case of the UN shouting into the void? I asked Mary Robinson, former president and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at a news conference on Monday. She said that she felt real pressure in the conference room that the world had to move forward. "I think that can't be ignored, even by a powerful United States supporting Israel, the current Israeli government," she said, adding, "they particularly can't ignore the widespread sense now of an unfolding genocide and the starvation of children, of women, pregnant women". This could be the point of realisation, she said, that the US "is becoming complicit in a genocide". "That could be enough," she said. It is certainly true that Americans' support for Israel's military campaign has waned. A recent Gallup poll showed just a third of US citizens polled backed Israel's actions in Gaza – the lowest since November 2023. It is also worth noting, as an aside, that New York could be on the brink of electing as mayor Zohran Mamdani – an outspoken critic of Israel's military assault on Gaza, who has said he would arrest Mr Netanyahu were he to come to the city. On Monday, the UN conference's co-chair Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, was upbeat about the prospects of finding common ground with the White House. After all, it was Mr Trump who brokered the Abraham Accords during his first term – a deal to normalise relations between Israel and the Arab states of United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. "I think we've all heard President Trump statements on many occasions that he is a man of peace, that he is someone who opposes war, and he is a humanitarian," Mr bin Farhan Al Saud told reporters at the conference. He said he believed US engagement, especially the engagement of President Trump, could be a "catalyst for an end to the immediate crisis in Gaza and potentially a resolution of the Palestinian Israeli conflict In the long term". Saudi Arabia's eventual sign-up to the accords was always the big prize for Mr Trump. But the Saudi foreign minister made it clear this week that there would be no negotiation on the matter, without an end to the war and the establishment of a Palestinian State. The Saudis certainly have a good deal of leverage in Washington. But then, so does Mr Netanyahu. Some experts remain sceptical that the shift in mood will yield any real change. "I think we've reached a turning point in terms of perceptions of the war, and I think a tipping point in the coverage of the catastrophe," Michael Hanna, US Programme Director at the International Crisis Group, an NGO aimed at conflict prevention. "I'm not yet sure that that is going to fully translate into a change in policy," he added. He said there was always a gulf between public opinion and the political class in the US. "That gap is shrinking in some respects - we see a rise in criticism," he said. "Again, criticism is not the same as policy shift". Ms Greene, for example, was largely alone in Congress on the Republican side, he said. Indeed, while the week started with Mr Trump sympathising with the plight of hungry Palestinians, by Thursday, he was issuing barely veiled threats against Canada over its intention to recognise a Palestinian State. The State Department also announced sanctions against the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organisation on Thursday, which means members will be unable to travel to the US for the UN General Assembly in September. As for diplomatic isolation at the UN, that is something the US is prepared to bear, Mr Hanna told RTÉ News. "It is notable when the isolation also encompasses other Western members of the permanent five, UK and France, so maybe it's magnified isolation. "But the US has been willing to endure that isolation for a very long time, so it's not clear that that is particularly uncomfortable," he said. A lot hinges on President Trump's own views of course, and it is anyone's guess what he will decide next. His approach to the Middle East has been "all over the map," Mr Hanna said. There have been moments of tension between Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu, he added. "There were direct contacts with Hamas, which I think shocked the Israelis," he said, "then the U-turn on the Yemen campaign". Mr Trump abruptly declared an end to the bombing of Houthi rebel group positions in May. "And then, of course, then another big shift on intervention in Iran," he said in reference to the US joining Israel's bombing campaign of Iran's nuclear sites in a surprise move in June. The flip-flopping continued this week, when President Trump initially said he had "no view" on the matter, when the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the UK's intention to recognise the State of Palestine. But within hours, Mr Trump had labelled recognition "a reward for Hamas". Amid all the rhetoric and noise, Mr Hanna said, the point is that there is "still no ceasefire in Gaza".
