The new Atlantic charter – a nostalgic reference to the past

A New Atlantic Charter
On the eve of the recent G7 summit in Cornwall Prime minister Boris Johnson and President Joe Biden signed a new Atlantic Charter modelled on the historic joint declaration made by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941 when setting out their goals for the post-war world.
But what is significance of the new Atlantic Charter and the accompanying Joint Statement? Will it be the first step in setting a new peaceful world order or just a nostalgic and insignificant reference to a long bygone area?
Let’s have a look.

The original Atlantic charter – a first step in uniting Western democracies?
In August 1941 Prime minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt arrived in secrecy on board warships for a meeting at sea near Argentia in Newfoundland. The president on board the cruiser Augusta and the Premier on board the battleship Prince of Wales.
Winston Churchill representing a UK fighting for its survival and realising that it needed the support of a US not inclined to go to war, but as Churchill is supposed to have said “FDR vowed to wage war but not declare it.”
Together they signed what became the Atlantic Charter (Text at loc.gov), which initiated what Churchill saw as a very special relationship.
The significance of the joint declaration was emphasised by Churchill in the House of Commons on 9 September 1941 when he said:
“Although the principles in the Declaration, and much of the language, have long been familiar to the British and American democracies, the fact that it is a united Declaration sets up a milestone or monument which needs only the stroke of victory to become a permanent part of the history of human progress.”
On January 1 1942 the 26 allies (Russia and China included) in the fight against the Axis powers, pledged their support for the Atlantic Charter by signing the so-called “Declaration by United Nations.”
A further step on the road to what became in October 1945 the United Nations.
The Atlantic Charter thus became the first step in uniting countries in the attempt to create a new world order based upon what must be seen as the ideal values and democratic principles of the West. First allying the UK and US as comrade in arms, it became the basis for a new world order. Therein also lies the significance of the original Atlantic Charter.
“The original Atlantic Charter included landmark agreements to promote democracy, free trade and increased opportunity for all. It was one of the greatest triumphs of UK and US relations and did more than any other agreement to shape the world order, leading directly to the creation of the UN and NATO.” (gov.uk)

Biden and Johnson’s charter – Self-aggrandisement by nostalgic reference to the past
According to a statement accompanying the announcement of the new charter
“The 2021 Atlantic Charter will recognise that, while the world is a very different place to 1941, the values the UK and US share remain the same. Just as our countries worked together to rebuild the world following the Second World War, so too will we apply our combined strength to the enormous challenges facing the planet today – from global defence and security to building back better from coronavirus to stopping climate change.” (gov.uk)
Like the original charter contains eight goals that the US and the UK will work together “for the benefit of humanity.” (gov.uk).

A critical look at the Charter

1. First Johnson and Biden declare their “resolve to defend the principles, values, and institutions of democracy and open societies, which drive our own national strength and our alliances. We must ensure that democracies – starting with our own – can deliver on solving the critical challenges of our time. We will champion transparency, uphold the rule of law, and support civil society and independent media. We will also confront injustice and inequality and defend the inherent dignity and human rights of all individuals.”
What we see in reality is moralistic banner weaving, outpouring of high-minded principles, wordy condemnations of countries acting against this principles, and impotent attempts to force these countries to change their ways by pin prick sanctions, limited enough not cause real problems for either the them nor us.

2. “We intend to strengthen the institutions, laws, and norms that sustain international co-operation to adapt them to meet the new challenges of the 21st century, and guard against those that would undermine them. We will work through the rules-based international order to tackle global challenges together; embrace the promise and manage the peril of emerging technologies; promote economic advancement and the dignity of work; and enable open and fair trade between nations."
Let us concentrate on the first part of the promise.
Slightly bizarre is it not? UK and the US will strengthen precisely those institutions for instance charged with upholding the rule of law and guard against human rights. Realising of course that these institutions no longer seem able to uphold these principles. Principles that may be seen as belonging to Western democracies. Thus, the intention may seem commendable, but in reality, the two countries no longer possess the power to realise their goals. Meaning that they no longer will be able guard against those that would undermine these principles.
The second part on technology, economic advancement and dignity of work pops up in the following sections, thus comments will be found there.

3. “We remain united behind the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. We oppose interference through disinformation or other malign influences, including in elections, and reaffirm our commitment to debt transparency, sustainability and sound governance of debt relief. So too will we defend key principles such as freedom of navigation and overflight and other internationally lawful uses of the seas.”
Territorial integrity, and the peaceful resolution of disputes and freedom of the seas echo the original charter but perhaps they also demonstrate that Western powers may no longer be able guarantee the upholding of these principles. Not being able to do much about Russian annexation of the Crimea or able to help sole solve the dispute in Ukraine. Or in the Middle East or Afghanistan or Myanmar.
It is perhaps ironic that the IT tools developed first and foremost in the West are now used to saw disinformation and influence elections in the West, and the West does not really seem to be able to stay on top in this battle against malign foreign influence.
Freedom of the seas. Western powers may still sail the South China Sea but are not really able to contain China’s growing ability to dominate this area. Perhaps China is initiating its own version of the US Monroe doctrine, perhaps entertaining similar notions with regard to outside interference in their hemisphere by US and the West, while on the other hand rapidly expanding their own influence into the Western sphere.

4. “We resolve to harness and protect our innovative edge in science and technology to support our shared security and deliver jobs at home; to open new markets; to promote the development and deployment of new standards and technologies to support democratic values; to continue to invest in research into the biggest challenges facing the world; and to foster sustainable global development.”
Finally realising what Trump was already very concerned about, that China is catching up and may be on the verge to dominate advances in certain areas of science and technology, like perhaps A.I. and quantum computing in science and in important areas of technology and infrastructure.
Here perhaps the goals of the Charter are at least accompanied by concrete efforts to keep in front, with the US proposals for a large science advancement program, the gigantic US infrastructure program proposed by the Biden administration and UK intentions of doing something similar on a somewhat lesser scale.
The initiatives may be too late and too limited compared to gigantic Chinese efforts, as discussed in the essay “Biden – Caretaker of America’s decline?”

5. “We affirm our shared responsibility for maintaining our collective security and international stability and resilience against the full spectrum of modern threats, including cyber threats. We have declared our nuclear deterrents to the defence of NATO and as long as there are nuclear weapons, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. Our NATO Allies and partners will always be able to count on us, even as they continue to strengthen their own national forces. We pledge to promote the framework of responsible State behaviour in cyberspace, arms control, disarmament, and proliferation prevention measures to reduce the risks of international conflict. We remain committed to countering terrorists who threaten our citizens and interests.”
Notable is the pledge to NATO and nuclear deterrent and the promise that allies and partners can count on US and UK. Not much about Trump’s insistence that the allies will have to do much more for their own defence. In fact, the Biden administration seems to have given up putting pressure on the Germans to spend more, by removing Trump’s threat of reducing US force levels in Germany and removing sanctions on Nordstream 2.
The pledge for disarmament and anti-proliferation sounds rather hollow, given that the allies do not seem to be able to do much about North Korea or Iran. Negotiating and re-joining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) may not reign in Iran’s ambitions.
Commitment to counter terrorists, yes of course, what is the alternative?

6. “We commit to continue building an inclusive, fair, climate-friendly, sustainable, rules-based global economy for the 21st century. We will strengthen financial stability and transparency, fight corruption and illicit finance, and innovate and compete through high labour and environmental standards.”
It self-evident that the mantra “Climate-friendly, sustainable” must have a prominent place, and it certainly looks as if at least developed nations and their businesses are already busy orientating their efforts to realise these goals, but what about the rest of the World?
Like for instance the IMF the Charter also talks of an inclusive and fair economy. Meaning presumable that the benefits of growth must be shared more broadly.
But like Christine Lagarde of the IMF one may well ask “So, if we know this, why have countries not undertaken to share economic benefits more widely? Why has inequality grown in so many countries in recent years?” We may add not the least internally in the US?
“Strengthen financial stability and transparency, fight corruption and illicit finance” has often been said, so what is new, what will the allies do differently?
“Innovate and compete through high labour and environmental standards” Of course, but what about the trend to move productions to countries where this cannot be guaranteed.

7. “The world has reached a critical point where it must act urgently and ambitiously to tackle the climate crisis, protect biodiversity, and sustain nature. Our countries will prioritise these issues in all our international action.”
Sounds if it would be part of the sixth goal, a repetition of the popular political mantra. How will they be able to guarantee that this will happen for instance in Africa, with its alarming population growth?

8. “We recognise the catastrophic impact of health crises, and the global good in strengthening our collective defences against health threats. We commit to continuing to collaborate to strengthen health systems and advance our health protections, and to assist others to do the same.”
Yes, we all do – recognise the catastrophic impact, but how do they intend to strengthen our collective defences. It may sound right, but as we have just seen it has to a large extent been everyone country for itself, not the least as seen in the US vaccination efforts. Where is collective responsibility and the common good, if say the US vaccinates the youngsters in the ongoing pandemic instead of people at risk in the rest of the World.

Joint Statement on everything but the kitchen sink
Together with the New Atlantic Charter Boris John and Joe Biden published a joint statement detailing their shared commitment to “cooperation in democracy and human rights, defence and security, science and innovation, and economic prosperity, with renewed joint efforts to tackle the challenges posed by climate change, biodiversity loss, and emerging health threats.” (gov.uk)
Apart from enlarging on goals and intentions in the new Atlantic Charter, it seems to contain an assortment of every topic that is in vogue at the moment. To use an old expression the joint statement seems to contain “everything but the kitchen sink.”
Here some excerpts from the main sections, demonstrating hotch-potch of issues:

Democracy, Human Rights & Multilateralism
“The U.S. and U.K. will continue to make practical efforts to support open societies and democracy across the globe. We will do this by defending media freedom, advancing a free and open internet, combatting corruption, tackling disinformation, protecting civic space, advancing women’s political empowerment, protecting freedom of religion or belief, and promoting human rights of all people.”
While such an all-encompassing list of intentions may have only positive connotations, an attempt to realise the intentions may show the inherent contradictions. In reality we already have the inherent conflict between women’s political empowerment and the protection of religious freedom and beliefs held not the least in Islam. Not to mention inherent contradictions in the Human Rights Declaration between religious freedom and say the the rights of women. Which is it to be? What will the West put first? Women’s empowerment or the protection of religious belief?
It does not help that the joint statement says “The U.S. and U.K. are committed to promoting the advancement of gender equity and equality as a key pillar of foreign policy and national security, including through educating girls, empowering women socially, economically, and politically, and ending violence against women and girls.”

Defence & Security
Under this heading is found the commitment to work “together closely on cyber security, countering illicit finance, and tackling all forms of terrorism by working together to address it online and enhance international collaboration on thwarting violent extremism that is racially, ethnically or ideologically motivated, including a range of hateful and white supremacist ideologies.”
As if words alone might solve conflicts. What the statement forgets are the very real ethnic and religious conflicts, that seem to be more less insolvable, when looking at the existing world. A heightened influx of migrants from non-western countries will certainly heighten the potential for conflicts.
The focus on white supremacist ideologies seems almost bizarre. In a certain way negating the whole statement. Is this joint statement in itself not a representation, in a subtle and inoffensive form of a basic belief in white supremacy, in the sense that the ideas and values that it represents are sprung from a decidedly white dominated Western view of the world. Thus, the statement seeming wants to thwart itself.
More relevant perhaps in relation to defence and security is the intention to modernise and integrate their armed forces. They mention the “U.K.’s new aircraft carrier, HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH, … on her first operational mission with U.S. and U.K. F-35 aircraft on board,” as a “demonstration of the unique interoperability of our Armed Forces.”
In reality an exception perhaps brought about by Britain being late in receiving F35 aircraft for the carrier. A carrier that may in itself represent a white elephant from a bygone area.

Science & Technology
Sounding almost like a conjurer they state: “We will develop a new landmark bilateral technology partnership in 2021/22. It will enable a new era of strategic cooperation to guarantee: the safety and security of our citizens; that we continue to lead the world in R&D; wealth creation and tackling inequality; the values of liberal democracies, open societies and open markets.
Again, indirectly indicating the fear that West is lacking behind in important scientific areas, future technologies and infrastructure. Also found is growing awareness of Western vulnerabilities in relation to critical supply chains. “We will strengthen cooperation in areas such as: ensuring the diversity, resilience and security of our critical supply chains.”

Trade & Prosperity
Demonstrating that the statement contains everything but kitchen sink, this section contains a commitment “to the rapid settlement of the Large Civil Aircraft dispute.” (The Boeing Airbus controversies relating to state subsidies). A few days later the dispute is actually postponed when Biden arrived in Brussel.
Also found is the platitude “that trade, when done right, can support our mutual interest in sustainable and green growth, good jobs for our workers, new opportunities for our innovators and businesses, and high labour and environmental standards.”
More interesting although somewhat vague is the intention “to launch a new joint initiative that brings together experts, practitioners and officials to advance a new “common sense” about how the economy works and the goals it should promote.”
Relating to the ongoing discussion about fair taxation of large multinational companies is the commitment to “reaching an equitable solution on the allocation of taxing rights, with market countries awarded taxing rights on at least 20% of profit exceeding a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises … [and] a global minimum tax of at least 15% on a country by country basis.”

Climate & Nature
Renewed reference to the Paris climate agreement and whole range of international efforts. Not much new here, but then there is the ambitious commitment to a “collective developed country goal of mobilising $100 billion annually through to 2025 from a wide variety of public and private sources in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation.”
Biden and Johnson also want to “make progress on climate action in a gender responsive manner.” Whatever that means. But perhaps we may refer to a report from an expert group on implementation of gender-responsive climate action, which argues that “women and men may experience the impacts of climate change differently, with women disproportionately affected due to gender inequalities.”
https://unfccc.int/files/gender_and_climate_change/application/pdf/egmreport_bonn_final_25_november_2015.pdf

Health
No wonder the primary focus is on the ongoing pandemic: “The U.S. and the U.K. are determined to work together to overcome the current pandemic, which has reversed progress on improving the human condition, and to be better prepared in the future. Reflecting our shared strength in science and technology, we commit to enhancing our cooperation on tackling variants of concern and emerging infectious disease threats with pandemic or epidemic potential.”
They voice their ambition “to deliver safe, effective and affordable vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics within 100 days of a future pandemic threat being identified.”
They also take a look on their own shared problems, when mentioning that they “look forward to normalising two-way travel between our two countries.” Before returning to the grander view where they promise to “work together to help increase global vaccine supply through investments in manufacturing of safe and effective vaccines and the materials needed to produce them.”  So far their  pledges made at the G7 summit to  make vaccine available  for countries in the rest of the  World  are rather insufficient.  
They recognise the importance of the WHO and express support “for the next phase of the WHO-convened COVID-19 origins study, including in China.” Their support means little if China simply refuses to allow a thorough origins study, and the renewed focus on the Wuhan lab origin certainly will not help. What will and can the West then do to find the origins of Covid-19? No answer is forthcoming.
Instead, we find a lofty commitment to expand “the availability, accessibility, and quality of essential health services among the world’s most vulnerable, marginalized, and inadequately-served; and prioritizing maternal, neonatal and child health, nutrition, malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.”

Commitment to Northern Ireland
In this long list of commitments to solve and alleviate world problems it is somewhat bizarre to find a “commitment to working closely with all parties to the Agreement [The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement] to protect its delicate balance and realise its vision for reconciliation, consent, equality, respect for rights, and parity of esteem.


Fighting Western decline with moralism and words?
The long list of commitments is sprinkled with moralistic statements and promises, as if the future of Western ideas, values and democracies will be secured with words. Underneath we find the rising fear that, what Biden and Johnson try secure with nostalgic words reflecting the past, will be undermined by China’s growing might and influence and its very real advances in science and technology.
Joe Biden and Boris Johnson and their advisors may finally have realised that the West will have to do something to uphold what may be seen as the Western hegemony in ideas, values and scientific and technologic advances, but they will certainly not succeed by wordy nostalgic references to the past. They do not possess the sense of urgency and will power to fight for Western hegemony that a Roosevelt and a Churchill possessed. The New Atlantic Charter and the Joint Statement thus seem  represent more an attempt at self-aggrandisement by nostalgic reference to a more glorious past.
To counter rise of an increasingly powerful China believing in its own superiority, and to avoid an "Untergang des Westen" scenario, there would have to be a rejuvenated Western drive, a greater degree of unity in the West, a will to power, and a conviction of the validity of ideas and values of the West. To be really heretical: We need some kind of pendant to Trump's "America First." A Re-vitalization of the belief in the superiority of the ideas and values that shaped the West.
Alas, what see instead is disunity internally in the US, bickering and disunity among Western allies and almost everywhere in the West a surrendering to an unfortunate cultural relativism. We do not see that the invisible but crucially important and mutually supportive values ​​and norms that uphold our culture, democracy and society are eroded away. Creating a strange kind of internal defeatism and value relativism that cripples the ability to decide and to act.
West may applaud especially Biden’s loud words about America’s role in defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity. Alas, these values cannot be upheld by wordy charters and statements. What is needed is very real economic and military might and preservation of a Western hegemony in science and technology.