January Democracy Café
The New Year (2026) got off to a flying start with the capture of the president of Venezuela by American forces and threats by Donald Trump to annex/invade/occupy/purchase Greenland depending one assumes, on the mood he’s in that day. He’s promising to tackle the unrest in Iran ‘we’re locked and loaded’ he said and today, he’s promising to intercede in Syria where unrest has erupted. Cuba is on the list as well. One wonders how he’s got time to be president of the US – no wonder he’s falling asleep in meetings.
So perhaps it was no surprise that several of our proposed topics focused on how we (the UK) that is, should rethink our relations with the US. Whither the ‘special relationship’ – do we even want a special relationship with a rogue state? It was quickly pointed out that values seem to be changing. The rules based international system which came into being after WWII seems to have died. The present situation seems to have put the government in a bind with Sir Keir Starmer equivocating about whether US actions were justified or not. Some thought that there was little he could do without risking sanctions against British goods.
Our view of the US it was suggested was profoundly affected by Hollywood with films and TV series showing America at its finest. It rather overlooked the poverty and the fact that millions of Americans had no access to health care for example.
Did we in fact ever have a ‘special relationship’? Suez was mentioned and the 1946 McMahon Act could have been mentioned [an act which prevented the UK and Canada from having the nuclear weapons secrets despite their scientists involvement in developing the weapon]. The much vaunted help in WWI and WWII was as a result of American interests (Pearl Harbour for example) not to help Europe.
A lot was to do with Americas distaste for European colonialism and this led to the Monroe Doctrine and the notion of spheres of influence with America claiming a kind of dominion over the whole of the Americas. In the light of recent developments, it has wittingly been renamed the Donroe doctrine.
A kind of summing up of the debate so far was the question ‘do we want the situation as it is?’ We have lived this belief in shared values with the US and their major support of NATO. Recent events seem to have left us in a kind of limbo. Should we not think more about who we are?
Perhaps, it was suggested, we should adopt a more robust attitude to things like the many US bases in the UK. Should we close them down? Up till now it was noted, we tended to be reactive: with each action by President Trump we just seem to accept it. Closing the bases would, by contrast, be pro-active. Would there in fact be advantages in the ending of the so-called special relationship. We will no longer to be seen as part of the Anglo-Saxon world which could be of benefit on the world stage.
Europe had been mentioned and maybe the dreaded B word had been uttered but we were reminded that Europe was far from united. The Mercosur agreement between the EU and some S American states was mentioned which has taken 25 years to complete. It still awaits ratification. No one in Europe is going to stand up to America if it decides to seize Greenland. Would such a seizure mean the end of NATO?
The world order has changed. There were now three power blocks: US, Russia and China. By inference, despite its size, Europe was not one of them partly because it wasn’t united. China was the most ominous and would their likely invasion of Taiwan ‘bother anyone’ it was asked? There seemed to be no coherent resistance to these autocratic states (including the US under Trump to have many of the features of an autocratic state).
However, to counter this view, it was noted that the Venezuelan oil adventure was almost certainly built on sand. The oil was heavy and costly to refine. The extraction equipment was old and in need of billions to bring it up to date. ‘Peak oil’ was drawing near and it was doubtful if the oil majors would be interested in risking major investment in an unstable environment. Will the whole adventure come to be seen as a foolhardy move? It was noted that Trump seems to think in real estate terms [implying that the wider politics gets ignored in the desire for profits].
Some of the assumptions about these power blocks was questioned. How real were they? What proof of was there of US military strength? [if China invades Taiwan we will no doubt find out]. Russia hoped to occupy Ukraine in a few weeks yet here we are 4 years later and they have only secured a small part at enormous cost.
To end this part we were invited to look at this brief but amusing video about Greenland.
An interesting discussion and one about a moment in our history which may be seen as a defining one. A bit like Suez which finally brought home to the nation that we were no longer a world power and a command from the US president led to a national humiliation. Will recent events finally bring us to the realisation the ‘special relationship’ is dead in the water (if indeed it ever existed) and that we and the Europeans need to get wise about how the world has changed? Perhaps it will turn out President Trump has done us a favour by making it patently clear that our reliance on the US is over. We can no longer afford to be subservient.
The second half of our discussion was a bit problematic. The events discussed above were behind several of the suggested topics which meant we were a little adrift. An element we had not discussed however was the role of drugs in several aspects of government policy. In the lead up to the arrest of Maduro, it was alleged that the country was a major source of drugs into the USA. A number of speed boats allegedly carrying drugs, have been blown up in the Caribbean. The US is in the midst of a fentanyl crisis and these do not come from Venezuela.
A surprising allegation was made that Israel was smuggling drugs into Gaza adding to the distress there. This seemed difficult to believe and the motive for this questioned. However, a search on line reveals the story is likely to be true. There are indeed a number of reports [from the New Arab; Tempo; Middle East Monitor; Economic Times and the Times of Israel] which all claim the drug Oxycodone is being smuggled in. The motive for this was unclear.
Some speculated it was an attempt to control a population. We were reminded that Aborigines in Australia were paid with alcohol which fuelled the notion that they were always drunk. There was a brief discussion about states subjugating parts of their populations meant they weren’t getting the best out of them. Talents were being wasted. A lot of this activity was based on racism e.g. in South West Africa. We were reminded of Juvenal’s ascerbic quote panem et circenses – bread and circuses to keep the population on side.
One of the biggest examples was the British Empire’s activities in China with the importation of opium leading to the Boxer rebellion. The profits from this were vast and the need to move the money from the Far East to Britain led to the founding of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank which became HSBC. Britain’s role in this is still resented in China. Recently, the bank has been involved in moving the billions of dollars made by the Sinaloa cartel into Mexico.
It also was an example of the role of the City in facilitating the vast profits from drugs, trafficking, diamonds and arms sales and moving them to off-shore destinations. The oligarchs and the billions of roubles was mentioned in this connection.
We then had a brief discussion around the topic is the Democracy Café just a talking shop? I shall post a separate item on this soon.
Peter Curbishley
Books mentioned:
Four Thousand Weeks, Oliver Burkeman, 2021, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pub
Too Big to Jail, Chris Blackhurst, 2023, Macmillan, pub
Putin’s People, 2021, Catherine Belton, William Collins, pub
Off White: The Truth About Anti-Semitism, 2025, Rachel Shabi, One World, pub
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 