Since the induction of Donald Trump has opened a new period in international relations, each state must now try to reposition itself. However, the British government, which has been forced by referendum to accept Brexit, is seeking to reconcile the interests of the ruling class with those of its people. In an attempt to do so, Prime Minister Theresa May is exploring contradictory options.

*

Nothing is ever easy. The change of administration in Washington should lead to the eradication of the Muslim Brotherhood and all the jihadist groups it has formed. The new President waited no longer than a week before he published a Memorandum on the method of waging a genuine fight against Daesh. However, the allies of the United States have no wish to align themselves too easily with this 180° turn in a policy from which they have learned to benefit.

The United Kingdom is facing different options offered by Brexit – either to seek closer ties with the growing economic power, China, or to confirm the Anglo-Saxon alliance and form a world directorate with the United States. Problems – the Chinese have a very unpleasant memory of British colonisation, and are demonstrating in Hong Kong that they have no intention of pursuing the “One country, two systems” agreement, while the United States are hoping to replace their military imperialism with commercial influence.

Since Donald Trump has so far declined London’s invitation, Prime Minister Theresa May hurried across the Atlantic. During an astonishing speech given before the Republican representatives in Philadelphia, she spoke of the common History of the two states and the international influence of the Commonwealth – ending with the statement that she was ready to recreate with President Trump the Reagan-Thatcher couple which dominated the Western world during the 1980’s.

Meeting President Trump, the Prime Minister was all smiles. She expressed her delight at the announcement by her host of a bilateral commercial agreement, the first of his mandate. However, this agreement will only come into effect once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, which is to say only after a year or two.

Not certain that she had been convincing enough, Mrs. May continued her tour with a visit to Turkey. During her meeting with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, she obviously announced a development in bilateral commerce, but this was not the object of her visit. Most of their discussions centred around the way in which London and Ankara could profit together from the European Union, from the outside.

But before anything else, she began by congratulating the dictator for having so brilliantly defended democracy during the abominable coup d’état of 15 July last year – which, in reality, was an attempted assassination on President Erdogan organised by the CIA. At that time, already, the British ambassador had been the first to change sides and celebrate the victory of the “rule of law”.

The latest idea of the Foreign Office is to solve the problem of Cyprus by obtaining special economic rights for Turkey. In this way, Ankara would be able to enjoy the European common market without joining the Union - and it would also enable London to use this privilege to continue to trade with the Union after Brexit. It’s a clever idea, but it does not seem to be based in good faith, and does not inspire the trust that the same Mrs. May demanded from Brussels for the Brexit negotiations.

Theresa May expressed her concern about the Russo-Turkish reconciliation, despite the secular antagonism between the two parties. Having understood that the Astana negotiations were not aimed at reconciling the Syrian points of view, but at allowing Turkey to make a first move towards Damascus, she sought to destabilise this growing alliance. In her eyes, the problem was not that Mr. Erdogan was preparing to salute President el-Assad after having fought him for so long, but that he should do so under the influence of the grand Russian rival.

Concerning Syria, London could help with fighting the Kurds if Ankara would leave it in control of the jihadists – a proposition which is in total contradiction with the one she made to the “Americans”. But no matter, it is a historical habit of “perfidious Albion” to vary their messages depending on who’s listening, and to wait and see what works and what doesn’t.

Courtesy Thierry Meyssan; Translation Pete Kimberley

Source Al-Watan (Syria)

http://www.voltairenet.org/article195173.html