I have just started reading Chris Patten's book What Next? Surviving the Twenty-First Century. Admittedly, I am not even a third of the way through so far, so perhaps it is premature for me to be blogging on it, but so far I would highly, highly recommend it. Though I do not agree with him on everything (eg Europe), I have always admired Chris Patten's intellect, writing style, wit, his concern for the environment before most Tories went green, and most of all his conduct as Governor of Hong Kong. At times, though, I had been troubled by his hostility to the Bush Administration (even though he is in quite good company), and I was concerned that his comments on US policy were boiling over on occasions into potential anti-Americanism. I was therefore extremely encouraged to read in his new book the following words on pages 58-59:
So a world in which the United States is the only superpower, a world whose principal economic dynamism has in the past reflected the American way of doing things and running businesses, is not an American empire to be hated and fought. You can criticise US policies or attitudes without believing that America is the Great Satan .... To be hostile to America is very often to be hostile to the decisions that the rest of us make - the decision to buy this or that product in the marketplace, to run our affairs this or that way or the decision as taxpayers not to spend as much as we should on security. If Europeans, for example, want a world in which the international rule of law is preserved, they need to accept that this sometimes requires the use of force, and unless they can provide their own military contribution to this, America will either do it on its own or it will not be done at all.
His analysis of the bizarre anti-globalisation coalition is superb (p.52-53):
The anti-globalisation movement is closely associated with the modern counter-Enlightenment (as well as with modern anti-Americanism). These forces from the political wings of left and right converge rather curiously .... They have a tendency to converge particularly in their opposition to liberal principles .... Opposition to globalisation rarely takes the form of a credible alternative; too often it is simply a bellow of rage ... The left-right convergence helps to explain why old-fashioned communists seem to tolerate Islamic fascists, and why skinheads seem happy marching alongside socialists at anti-globalisation rallies ..... The irony of anti-globalisation, even at the extremes of ecological Druidism, Islamic radicalism, skinhead isolationism or Marxist irredentism, is that all the activists are more than happy to use the means of globalisation - cheap air fares, internet communications, blogging, money transfers - even as they damn them. I once saw in London at a demonstration someone (presumably without a sense of humour) holding a poster announcing the presence of 'The World-Wide Movement against Globalisation'. This may be one of the ironies of globalisation, that the foundation of a truly global civil society will begin in the activists, organisations and charities of the anti-globalisation movement.
So far, it is a book I would highly recommend. The Independent thinks so too. While as I say I would not necessarily agree with Patten on everything, and am not sure I would want him as Foreign Secretary given his passion for the EU, his adament rejection of the idea of a League of Democracies, his hostility to the Iraq war, I certainly agree with The Independent that "Every thinker on, or practitioner of, international affairs will profit from reading any book that Patten writes on foreign policy." Even when one disagrees, one cannot fail to be stimulated, challenged and engaged by Patten's thinking and writing.
