TEHRAN – Farhang Jahanpour, a former senior research fellow at Harvard University, views globalization as the main reason why the British people voted to leave the European Union.

Jahanpour tells the Tehran Times that the impression of lack of sovereignty by European citizens coupled with economic hardships and immigration have given impetus to nationalistic sentiments in Europe.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Q: In an unexpected move, a majority of the British people voted to leave the European Union in the referendum that was held on 23 June 2016. What were the reasons for the British opposition to the European Union?

A: Unfortunately, it is a part of a powerful global or at least Western phenomenon that has been gaining momentum. There is a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction with the establishment and with the direction that events have taken during the past few decades.

1- The first main reason for current social upheavals has been globalisation. During the past few decades, economy has been globalised and many corporations have exported their jobs to the countries with the cheapest labour force. The former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown put it this way:

“The elephant in the room is globalisation – the speed, scope and scale of the seismic shifts in our global economy. And the most obvious manifestation of the world we have lost is the hollowing out of our industrial towns as a result of the collapse of manufacturing in the face of Asian competition. These towns are home to a disproportionate share of the semi-skilled workers who feel on the wrong side of globalisation and who opted to vote leave. Unable to see how globalisation can be tamed in their interests, they have, not surprisingly, become recruits to an anti-globalisation movement whose lightning rod is migration. To “take back control” seems the only way to shelter, protect or insulate yourself against global change.”

As Gordon Brown points out, most people feel that they have lost control over their lives and they want to “take back control”.

2- The second reason has been the economic inequality and injustice that globalisation has produced. The banking crisis in 2008 was a by-product of wrong economic policies. However, instead of curing the root causes of economic collapse, most governments have implemented a policy of austerity that has put a great deal of pressure on poorer people. Most of the wealth has gone to the top one percent of the society. Working class people have had a hard time and their income has not kept pace with inflation. This has resulted in a feeling of frustration and loss of hope in the future.

3- During the past few years, as the result of wars and social upheavals in the Middle East and the rest of the world, there has been an unprecedented rise in the number of refugees and immigrants moving to more affluent societies. Before the last election, David Cameron had promised that if elected to office, he would reduce the number of immigrants to tens of thousands. However, last year there were more than 330,000 immigrants to Britain. This has led to a shortage of school places, has put the National Health Service under severe strain, and has pushed up the price of houses.  However, immigrants have also contributed greatly to the British economy and many of these problems have been due to the lack of investment in those sectors under different governments and not to immigration alone.

The long lines of refugees from the Middle East, especially from Syria, trying to cross to Europe have frightened many people, especially as they have seen many terrorist acts committed by extremist groups in the name of Islam. This has given rise to anti-Islamic feeling throughout Europe and more so in the United States, where the Republican presumptive presidential candidate Donald Trump has advocated a total ban on the arrival of Muslims to America.

However, mass emigration is a global problem, for which the West shares a large measure of responsibility. The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) has reported that the number of people displaced by war, conflict, persecution or economic collapse has hit a record high. This is a problem that must be tackled globally, and no country can build a wall around itself and isolate itself from the rest of the world.

4- When faced with these daunting challenges, people look for scapegoats. The immigrants, the European Union, and basically foreigners provide a good scapegoat to blame for all the troubles. To be fair, there is a lot that has gone wrong with the EU too. After the devastations of the two world wars, European countries decided to form a union in order to prevent further wars in the continent, and so far it has achieved that goal. However, gradually, it has gone well beyond its original goals.

Initially, the European Economic Community started as an economic union, but gradually it became the European Union with the ultimate aim of establishing a United States of Europe. In order to achieve that, it has created a massive bureaucracy at a huge cost. Most people feel that the EU is undemocratic, unaccountable and too remote from their local problems. While people can change their governments in elections, they feel that unelected EU officials govern their lives and they have no way of changing them.

The impression of the loss of sovereignty has resulted in the rise of extremist and populist groups in Europe, such as United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in Britain, National Front Party in France, Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, Freedom Party in Austria, and many similar nationalistic parties in the rest of Europe. We see the same development in the United States, as can be seen from the success of Donald Trump in the Republican Party.

“When faced with these daunting challenges, people look for scapegoats. The immigrants, the European Union, and basically foreigners provide a good scapegoat to blame for all the troubles.”

This is a dangerous development and if unchecked it can result in the rise of extremist national parties similar to what we saw prior to the Second World War in Germany.

Q: What will be the effect of Brexit on British relations with Europe?

A: The British Prime Minister David Cameron resigned immediately after the results of the referendum were known, but he said that he would leave it to the next prime minister to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which allows a member state to withdraw from the Union. This will mean a delay of a few months, as the next prime minister will not be elected till 9th September.

Meanwhile, EU leaders have made it clear that they would like to resolve the crisis as soon as possible, and that Britain cannot receive any special favours. One reason for this strict approach is that there are many movements in different EU countries that also wish to get out of the Union, and if Brussels seemed to be too lenient on Britain, it would encourage other countries to do the same.

Of course, Britain’s exit from the EU is a big loss to the Union too, because Britain has the second largest economy and the second largest population of the EU next to Germany. She is also a permanent member of the Security Council, and the fourth largest military force possessing nuclear power. Furthermore, she is the leader of the Commonwealth with 53 member states and 2.3 billion people. This is why Brexit resulted in big drops in shares in practically all EU countries. 

Q: What will be the effect of Brexit on British relations with the Middle East?

A: Britain’s relations with the Middle East have been largely independent of the EU, and that independence will be strengthened as the result of Brexit. It is clear that Britain and the EU will compete for influence and for economic gain in the Middle East.

Britain has already returned to the Middle East in the form of building a military base in Bahrain. Traditionally, Britain has had close relations with Middle Eastern countries, especially with Arab monarchies. Britain will try to strengthen those links with bigger military sales and greater investment in those countries. Already, Britain is the second biggest arms supplier to the Middle East after the United States, and this trade is likely to grow.

As far as political relations are concerned, Brexit could enable the EU to adopt a more balanced posture towards Israel and the Arabs. Next to the United States, Britain has been Israel’s closest ally in Europe. Britain has been seen as a country that safeguarded Israel’s interests in the EU. In a last minute attempt to win Jewish votes for the EU membership, David Cameron addressed Israel’s supporters at the charity Jewish Care. He said: “When Europe is discussing its attitude towards Israel, do you want Britain — Israel’s greatest friend — in there opposing boycotts, opposing the campaign for divestment and sanctions, or do you want us outside the room, powerless to affect the discussion that takes place?” He also brought Iran into his reasoning, vowing that if Britain remained in the EU, it would be in a stronger position to “stop Iran (from) getting nuclear weapons.”

Therefore, Brexit could enable the EU to adopt a more independent role in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The lesson that they (Middle Eastern countries) can learn from recent EU troubles is that they should move one step at a time, and while they bring their economies and politics closer together they should respect and celebrate the differences in the Middle East, which have produced such a varied and vibrant patchwork of cultures and civilizations.

Q: Will Brexit have any effect on British relations with Iran?

A: I do not think that Brexit will have a major effect on British relations with Iran. As in the case of the rest of the Middle East, Britain will compete with the EU for markets and investment. As a member of the P5+1, Britain supported the nuclear agreement, and it has already reopened its embassy in Tehran.

Instead of pushing Britain towards the Arabs, it would be advisable if Iran tries to have strong economic and political relations with Britain, because whether in or out of the EU, Britain will continue to remain a major economic and political power. Indeed, there is a good chance that after leaving the EU, Britain will be more interested in having stronger economic relations with Iran. She may also get closer to the United States. Therefore, closer relations with Britain can also lead to less hostile relations with the United States.

Q: What will be the lessons of Brexit for Iran and the Middle East?

A: I have long advocated closer relations between various countries in the Middle East. The strains in the EU have shown that it is not possible to force many countries of diverse cultures, histories, languages and political systems into a single union. However, it is possible and desirable to enable those countries to cooperate with each other in the closest possible way.

After the Second World War, European countries had the option of either continuing with their centuries-old hostilities or try to join together and resolve their differences through collaboration. Similarly, the countries in the Middle East have the option of either continuing with their proxy wars and rivalries or of joining hands for the common good.

Iran already has close economic and political ties with a number of regional countries, especially with Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan. Those countries must try to expand their collaboration with the rest of the Middle East. The scourge of terrorism, which now threatens the entire Middle East as we have seen in Syria, Iraq and the recent terrorist outrage at Istanbul airport, means that the countries in the region must combine their forces in order to defeat this ugly phenomenon.

However, the lesson that they can learn from recent EU troubles is that they should move one step at a time, and while they bring their economies and politics closer together they should respect and celebrate the differences in the Middle East, which have produced such a varied and vibrant patchwork of cultures and civilizations.

PA/PA