You know when idiot editors meddle or reject your hypothesis, which then gets proved right? Yes. Just happened.

 

My once rejected article which is still “under edit”, is already being proved right. How frustrating is that?

 

I wrote an article on British Grand Strategy post Brexit on October 14th. I submitted it to a UK journal, which I obviously cannot name here.

There is this para which raised a few eyebrows.

The European Union, is a political construct, and as long as it stays, harsh though it may sound, it might tend to look at United Kingdom post Brexit as a rival source of competition. UK has unleashed, or at least inspired a lot of national socialist and populist forces within EU, and the survival of EU depends on dominating and defeating these forces and that cannot be done, unless UK either compromises with EU on single market or capitulates to a more powerful EU. Already there is extreme friction with regards to an European security force led by none other than Germany, which understandably leaves UK shaken as it leads to a separate division and bureaucratization of European security command alongside NATO, not to mention the nightmarish idea of a potential joint military force across a narrow sea, of which UK is not a part of. With regards to that, what then should therefore be the British strategy? Would she join forces with Russia, another great power (albeit a rogue one) which might feel threatened by the same development? Should Britain then try to persuade United States that a single economic and military union in Europe is actually a hegemonic idea which is not desirable and one that both US and UK should oppose, because frankly no one knows how this union might act in future? Or should it covertly instigate separatist conservative anti-centralisation forces across the continent?

This is not a a fortunate or necessary development, however, nor is it desirable and is being advocated here. It is just a plausible scenario that falls within the realms of statistical possibility and therefore must be taken into account in any such analysis.

Here’s a reviewer comment I received on my overall post. One sentence from it.

I found your article interesting earlier, on a second read I think it needs a fair bit of re-drafting. That’s not to say that I don’t want to publish it, just that I can’t in its current state.

On the specific para mentioned above, the comment I received was,

I don’t see the value of speculating about a possible future European conflict? Is it a credible possibility?” (Emphasis on credible.)

Needless to say, I submitted it to another journal, this time in US. They have accepted it, because US simply is more open on giving platform to different ideas without much editorial meddling. The reason why they are globally number 1 in research. It is however not published yet, as it is still under editorial proof-checking stage.

Interesting, THIS came out as a policy suggestion from the Conservative Policy Forum. On October 31, almost half a month since I first predicted that this will inevitably be considered as a policy, given the history of great power behaviour which is my area of speciality, but my article is still not published online.

How frustrating is that? This is what happens when omniscient editors who are not in anyway knowledgeable on International Relations theory, try their expertise on things they know nothing about.

I cannot obviously write the details but feel free to contact me if you need to know more.


Related Posts