Reflectii

As Dominic Raab and Michael Gove rule themselves out, we look at the main contenders and the five camps they fall into within the Tory Party

The flood of ministerial resignations from UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s government in recent days started with Rishi Sunak’s resignation as UK chancellor of the exchequer on July 5 2022, alongside health secretary Sajid Javid’s. His resignation letter cited differences of opinion over the economy, saying that a “low-tax, high-growth economy and world-class public services” could only be “responsibly delivered if we are prepared to work hard, make sacrifices and take difficult decisions”.

Boris Johnson’s resignation as prime minister is not just a portentous political event. His time in office – and the nature of his departure – throw up vital questions about democratic values and institutions.

Boris Johnson announced on Thursday that he would leave his post as prime minister of the United Kingdom as soon as a replacement from within the Conservative Party is selected, after a series of scandals resulted in a revolt from within his administration. So what happens now to the “Global Britain” that Johnson was trying to build? We reached out to our experts to gauge the reaction in foreign capitals to the drama in Westminster, and what the future might hold for the United Kingdom.

Why Regional Ties Win the Day

Aconstant and largely unquestioned refrain in foreign policy is that the world has globalized. Closets are full of clothes stitched in other countries; electronics and cars are often assembled far from where consumers live. U.S. investment flows into Asian markets, and Indians decamp to the United States for graduate school. The numbers show the magnitude of international exchange. Trade among all countries hovers around $20 trillion, a nearly tenfold increase from 1980. International capital flows also grew exponentially during that period, from $500 billion a year to well over $4 trillion. And nearly five times as many people are traveling across borders compared with four decades ago.

Why does war persist?

War was always madness, always immoral, always the cause of unspeakable suffering, economic waste and widespread destruction, and always a source of poverty, hate, barbarism and endless cycles of revenge and counter-revenge. It has always been a crime for soldiers to kill people, just as it is a crime for murderers in civil society to kill people. No flag ha ever been wide enough to cover up atrocities.

When the inaugural BRIC summit took place in 2009, it was a moment of relative triumph for its members. While the West dealt with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China — enjoyed temporary shelter from the turmoil. When South Africa joined the bloc in 2010, the BRICS agenda expanded beyond economic cooperation and now includes a wide array of global governance issues, including security.

Why Regional Ties Win the Day

Aconstant and largely unquestioned refrain in foreign policy is that the world has globalized. Closets are full of clothes stitched in other countries; electronics and cars are often assembled far from where consumers live. U.S. investment flows into Asian markets, and Indians decamp to the United States for graduate school. The numbers show the magnitude of international exchange. Trade among all countries hovers around $20 trillion, a nearly tenfold increase from 1980. International capital flows also grew exponentially during that period, from $500 billion a year to well over $4 trillion. And nearly five times as many people are traveling across borders compared with four decades ago.

Kevin Jennings is CEO of the Lambda Legal organization, a prominent advocate for LGBTQ rights. He sees his mission in part as fulfilling that hallowed American principle: “All men are created equal.”

“Those words say to me, ‘Do better, America.’ And what I mean by that is we have never been a country where people were truly equal,” Jennings says. “It’s an aspiration to continue to work towards, and we’re not there yet.”

NATO’s top official said Tuesday that he wants swift approval of Sweden’s and Finland’s application for alliance membership, as allies launched a ratification process that demands the backing of all 30 members.

Historically, entry into NATO is a lengthy endeavor, taking years in some cases. But for Finland and Sweden, “we speak about months,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said.