Support our Nation today - please donate here
Opinion

Annexed nation

13 Jan 2025 6 minute read
Photo Mat Fascione is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Simon Hobson

Asides from demonstrating the irresponsible and poor leadership qualities most people have expected of the incoming President of the United States of America, Donald Trump vocalising his schoolboy fantasies of annexing Greenland, the Panama Canal and Canada brings into sharp focus the many nations still living under control of an external governments authority: their human and natural resources too strong an addiction for the colonial master to relinquish.

Ice and a canal

The recently deceased 39th President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter, negotiated the treaty which returned the Panama Canal from US control to the government of Panama.

The canal was reverted to Panamanian control at the end of 1999. An event which marked the end of the beginning of what is proving to be over one hundred and twenty years of the US making claims to the Panamanian isthmus.

This is just a single ongoing diplomatic tension emanating from the United States, one of many, which have leached, and eradicated, central and southern America of resources, entrepreneurs and political statesmen.

Over 74 years ago the US signed an agreement with the Danish government in a pledge to protect Greenland from attack. Then the anticipated perpetrator of military action against the world’s largest island was the USSR, today it’s from the signatory of that accord.

But beyond the prospect of a conflict between two of the founding members of NATO — a situation which could not have been better orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself — the government of Greenland disputes the authority of Copenhagen to decide its foreign and defence policy.

Achieving the status of autonomous territory in 2009, the 56,000 inhabitants of the Artic lands, desire absolute liberty from their forced incorporation into the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland has a wealth of mineral and scientific resources from which it wants to shape and finance its own future.

A quite revolution

Canada, more specifically Québec, has lived through many skirmishes and two major invasions from the United States, the last of these being in 1812. Since those aggressions, the nation of Québec has also shaken off both French and British colonial rule, only to be absorbed into a federalised Canada.

As a result of two referendums asking the people of Québec to consider their place within Canada, the nation has seen the repatriation of powers over its economy, justice, taxation, immigration, culture and language. Despite this, Québec continues to be threatened from Ottawa though economic and cultural undermining. A situation expected to worsen if the Conservatives win the upcoming federal elections.

But the confidence to affirm their rights, as citizens of a distinct nation, only came to Québec in the 1960s. Throwing off the oppressive control of the Catholic Church and Anglophone business owners, Québecers undertook the Révolution tranquille.

The reforms which this ‘Quite revolution’ brought in lowered the voting age to 18 years, gave everyone access to education — for the first time in French — healthcare, pensions, encouraged Québec based industry and mining firms, nationalised energy and electricity production — today that national energy firm has assets totalling $93 billion — and expanded the government budget through increased borrowing.

Québec now finds itself with an economy comparable to Sweden and Ireland. It is a nation ready to go it alone, not join the United States.

Grain of treachery   

A little over a decade ago, Putin began annexing parts of the Ukrainian nation. In Westminster, parliamentary members have stood up to condemn that action.

The more informed among them, point to the appropriation by Putin of Ukrainian resources such as stores of wheat, coal, natural gas, oil: in his awarding mining rights to Russian companies for lithium and rare earth minerals and, the thieving of agricultural and industrial machinery. Activities which denude Ukraine’s economy of foreign currency and damages the lives of people in Ukraine and the wider region. These actions are rightly condemned by our representatives in Westminster.

Over 500 years have passed since England completed its annexation of Wales. Furthering English imperial ambitions, this invasion of our nation enriched the English royal family and its associated elites.

Since 1535, the colonisation of Cymru has seen the arrogation of its; timber, livestock, fish, salt, stone, aggregates, slate, iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, tin, gold, silver, natural gas, oil and, most famously, its coal — not to mention the destruction of its unique legal system, culture and language.

Today, much of our nation’s water is ‘owned’ by private companies who make vast profits from a resource belonging to the citizens of Wales.

But the new desire of our imperial masters in London, is the extraction of renewable energy: wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, solar, biomass and hydrogen. Chief benefactor of these riches is once again, the English royal family, via His Majesty’s Treasury in London and, companies whose profits land in banks outside of Wales. Our nation’s marine energy potential, alone, has an export market estimate of £76 billion. Combining this with the broader economic value of the energy and environment sector, and Cymru has renewable energy assets to be realised of more than £80 billion.

Indifferent duplicity

In their denouncing of Putin’s criminal actions in Ukraine and, condemnation of Trump’s sophomoric approach to international diplomacy, the United Kingdom’s leaders, the supporters of the status quo, are guilty of hypocrisy.

Ready to stand up and preach on the infractions of international law and the degradation of other people’s rights outside of the United Kingdom, while the people who vote them into power, us, suffer.

The barbarity of England’s monarchs in their plundering of Wales’ resources, is not a footnote of our island’s history, because it is this mindset, of our nation remaining the annexed property of London, which perpetuates in the minds of the United Kingdom government and many who sit on the green and red benches in the houses.

In their failure to rectify these economically predatory actions, Westminster’s parliamentarians trip themselves in their moral contradiction. Seemingly lost in their indoctrinated view of right and wrong – whereby what is Wales’, is in fact England’s.

Simon Paul Hobson is an approved Parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats.


Support our Nation today

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neil Anderson
Neil Anderson
1 day ago

Are the LibDems a unionist party or not, Simon?

Or are they seriously considering a UDI from the UK party?

Peni
Peni
1 day ago

Excellent article.
Edit note- it was a quiet revolution not a quite one.

John Ellis
John Ellis
1 day ago

It looks like the world, in the forthcoming few years, might have to adjust to yet another Putin seeking to expand the boundaries of his nation by seeking to absorb new territories. But this time the aggressive expansionism will be plotted in Washington as well as in Moscow.

Llew Gruffudd.
Llew Gruffudd.
1 day ago

Very good argument for Wales Independence, I think.

John Ellis
John Ellis
1 day ago
Reply to  Llew Gruffudd.

I’m inclined to agree. The way things have been going in the last decade and a half, it now seems to me that the UK as a nation appears to be stuck with seemingly endless austerity and consequent gradual national decline, with the grim impact that all that having on ordinary citizens. And that in this respect whichever political party is in office in Westminster looks likely to make very little difference. In the past I wasn’t a disciple of Welsh independence, but more recently I’m disposed to think that it might be worth a try. Independence eventually worked for… Read more »

Neil Anderson
Neil Anderson
19 hours ago
Reply to  John Ellis

If we commit ourselves to replicating the neo-liberal capitalist model in an independent Cymru, there would be a ‘similar slog’ as you say, John Ellis, with very uncertain outcomes other than continuing resource extraction. And why would we bother to be independent in that case? There are well-understood alternatives – the Keynesian model and our own fiat currency would very quickly produce relative and sustainable prosperity for all. That’s anathema to the Single Transferable Party so we’ll need new political parties in Cymru which can prioritise real needs (food, shelter, incomes, health and care, education) and the freedom, equity and… Read more »

John Ellis
John Ellis
18 hours ago
Reply to  Neil Anderson

I’m insufficiently competent when it comes to economic theories to comment usefully on the merits or otherwise of models such as Keynesianism. Or of its rivals!

Though it does strike me that when Ireland finally successfully morphed into a prosperous nation – a process which I witnessed happening between my first visit there in 1974 (not much sign then!) and numerous subsequent ones over the next forty years when the difference became incrementally ever more obvious each time – its successive governments have seemed very much to embrace ‘the neo-liberal capitalist model’!

Drew Anderson
Drew Anderson
16 hours ago
Reply to  John Ellis

You don’t really need to understand the theories of Keynes, or his rivals. You just need to compare and contrast the eras when his thinking had greater influence, than the ideas of those who replaced his. Keynes’ ideas were behind Atlee’s postwar spending, resultant boom and subsequent postwar consensus. Thatcher was influenced by the likes of Hayek, and in particular, Freidman (the architect of monetarism), which led to a shrinking state sector and endless rounds of cuts. One of Keynes quotes is: “Anything we can do, we can afford to do”. How many times, since 1979, have you heard variations… Read more »

John Ellis
John Ellis
15 hours ago
Reply to  Drew Anderson

How many times, since 1979, have you heard variations of “we’re skint” from UK governments?’

I might not understand the theoretical/intellectual principles which surely undergird your comment; but when you put it as you do, I take your point!

Rob
Rob
17 hours ago
Reply to  Neil Anderson

As an independent country we would have the freedom to design whatever economic strategy that is best tailored to our needs, and not have it imposed on us from London. This also includes the ability to prevent any economic exploitation of our own resources, wealth, and the ability to reinvest in our economy.

Neil Anderson
Neil Anderson
10 hours ago
Reply to  Rob

well, we might, Rob. There are some who would deny the need for our own currency, for example. There are also some of our own who gain from the exploitation – which way would they jump? And John Ellis, it is possible to benefit from neo-liberal capitalism – temporarily. Ireland appears more pragmatic than dogmatic these days, but the extent of foreign penetration of their economy is enough to worry me. The strength of their economy appears to rely on careful utilisation of their agricultural prowess and investment in that and in young people – education, culture especially music and… Read more »

S Duggan
S Duggan
9 hours ago

Ultimately, the plundering of our country will continue untill we get ourselves out of this one sided union. The people of Cymru are now suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, it’s up to us to wake the nation up from it’s delusions. Layout how much better off we would be as an independent country and show how we are currently being rip-off, used and neglected by the establishment in London.

Neil Anderson
Neil Anderson
3 hours ago
Reply to  S Duggan

As the great Yoda said, difficult to see the future is, S Duggan. And, always in motion the future is. I agree with your diagnosis of Stockholm Syndrome, but, as I implied earlier, our future as a country depends on a number of imponderables. Especially, how independent do we want to be? I’m a fundo when it it comes to that. Unless Cymru becomes fully independent, we will always be subject to the oh, so well-meaning bullying of our neighbour. Do realos really want that? Will we be led in into some concoction of devo-max-cum-indy-lite in a misguided choice for… Read more »

Our Supporters

All information provided to Nation.Cymru will be handled sensitively and within the boundaries of the Data Protection Act 2018.