Beneath contempt Down Under
I haven’t yet had time to read the second of Tony Blair’s three foreign policy speeches (Episode II: Attack of the Clones) to see if there’s any nutritional value in it. The way it’s being reported suggests not and anyway, the speech will now get zero coverage as the pundits ponder the Prime Minister’s unwise choice of words in a radio interview.
However, the speech was notable for the repetition of one of the Prime Minister’s favourite baseless smears. To wit: that criticism of the Bush Administration – implied, explicit or imagined – is anti-American:
But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in.
Most of us are, thankfully, capable of more sophisticated differentiation. George Bush, to pick an American at random, is a fool whereas Terry Gilliam is a genius. Dick Cheney (say) is the devil while Harper Lee is an angel. Of course, being an equal opportunities generaliser, Blair applies this same perceived failure to nuance to himself by prefacing the remark with:
I don’t always agree with the US. Sometimes they are difficult friends to have.
Not accustomed or inclined to hearing truth spoken to his own power, it’s not surprising that Blair is incapable of speaking it to others. We all know that “the US” means the Bush Administration but I suppose it was too much to expect the Prime Minister to say:
I don’t always agree with President Bush. Sometimes he is a difficult friend to have.
There’s always talk that Blair chooses to wield his so-called (and much vaunted) influence over Bush in private. To which the rest of us are entitled to demand: prove it. The softly, softly, catchy monkey approach hasn’t put many exhibits in the Blair zoo’s primate house.
The thing is, when talking about the Bush Whitehouse, Blair always sounds like a man at a party who’s brought a drunken rugger bugger with him. His friend is staggering around, insulting the other guests, breaking the furniture and throwing up in the corner but Tony says to everyone else: “Shhh! Look, don’t say anything horrible to George. He might get in a huff and leave.” Blair can’t admit that yet another rendition of “The hairs on her dicky dido” and the ostentatious farting accompanied by shouts “better out than in” from his companion offends those with better manners.
Posted on March 27th, 2006 at 3:16pm under Blair, Comment is Free, Off Yoghurt, UK politics, US Politics
| Related posts... • Why not paint a bloody big target on him as well? • That special relationship again • Suffer the Little Children |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 27 Comments |
Sorry, ‘Chickyog’, but I know you won’t drop dead with shock when I tell you that I disagree with you.
Beneath the surface of any American administration lie imperatives that defy party politics. The means adopted to help achieve these aims and objectives do, occasionally, change but not very often. Thus, I doubt that there is much difference between the foreign policy aims of ex-president Clinton and president Bush. However, it is true that Bush has changed the *means* by switching American policy from re-active to pro-active. If 9/11 had occurred during Clinton’s watch, I doubt if American actions would have changed by even a fraction! And believe me, if that gimlet-eyed harridan, Hilary of that ilk, ever gets the job, she will make Cheney look like Nelson Mandela – now there’s a thought!
I regret to say that your final paragraph likening president Bush and his administration to drunken, farting rugby players displays the sort of embarrassing and mis-placed (because not deserved) ‘hauteur’ that MacMillan showed when he spoke of Britain being the Athens to America’s Rome. Snobbish bollocks, if you will excuse the expression. The Americans will pursue their foreign policy objectives in exactly the same way as every other administration of every other nation in the world pursues theirs, by all means necessary.
A lovely piece as usual. However, I imagine that Blair did mean that “the US” were difficult friends to have. After all, it must have been pretty damn difficult for Toni when his pal Clinton bombed the civilian Serbian TV station killing, what? — 16 people and maiming more…
And he didn’t even has the decency to leak a memo talking about it…
DK
Blimey, careful David, you came very close to taking me seriously there. Shouldn’t your comment have been addressed to Francis Fukuyama?
The thing is, your philosophy towards this kind of thing, whether it be Iraq or whatever, is like that of the friends of Sinatra after Frank had committed yet another of his grotesques: “It’s Frank’s world and we just live in it.” Not all of us just want to shrug our shoulders and give a meally-mouthed, “shit happens”.
Even someone as morally compromised as Clinton didn’t commit atrocities on the scale of this administration. He is, after all, remembered for blowjobs not blowback.
And you’re labelling me with the wrong emotion in connection with my party analogy. My response to being stuck in a room with such a person would be a mixture of fear and disgust.
Of course, set against the long term-interests of the world, etc. etc., everything recedes into the distance, even the difficulties of friendship – and even things like this (warning: graphic photos).
All roads led to Rome now all Capital flows lead to Washington (OK so oil takes a detor to Bush’s Texas). Why do we want to be the friend of a country that ensures we get the arse end of the deal.
The next time you see Bush & Blair next to each other I bet you only see one of Bush’s arms.
Cos the other one is up bLIARS arse working the puppet
I know that I hardly ever read the newspapers these days but I wasn’t aware that the USA had committed *any* atrocities during either of the last two administrations. The change of policy to re-active from the pro-active one that America had followed since WWII came about (and none too soon!) because of 9/11. I say again, at the risk of tedium, that if it had happened on Clinton’s watch, he would have done much the same as Bush.
It is, of course, an easy shorthand to refer to this or that as ‘Clinton’s policy’, or ‘Bush’s action’, and so forth, we are all guilty and it is necessary in order to conduct a reasonably brisk conversation. However, these matters are never the result of one man, or even a handfull of men. All sorts of groups and factions and individuals have their imput and the imperatives that drive them in a certain direction, continue irrespective of who sits in the White House. ‘Geo-politics rules – OK’.
As to your moral conscience in matters of foreign policy, I can only pose you the same question I offer to others of similar sensitivities and to which, so far, I have never recieved a reply. If you were a ‘prince’, why would you conduct your foreign policy in a spirit of moral altruism when every other ‘prince’ in the history of Mankind has always conducted theirs in a spirit of keen national self-interest. And as a corollary, assuming you were an *elected* ‘prince’, why would I vote for you if you tell me that you are *not* going to act in the best interests of my country?
“I know that I hardly ever read the newspapers these days but I wasn’t aware that the USA had committed *any* atrocities during either of the last two administrations.”
The 2004 assualt on Fallujah, the use of aerial bombardment in civilian areas, the use of incendiary weapons in civilian areas, the execution of unarmed and wounded enemy hors de combat, the routine abuse of detainees in Iraq and elsewhere (and a refusal to abide by the Geneva Conventions).
Are you serious?
Oh, what next David? You going to get us to argue against the ticking bomb scenario to justify our disgust at prisoners being beaten to death? As I’m neither high born or running for office what would be the point of this parlour game? Other than to give you a momentary frisson of some semantic trick expertly played and more fodder to bang on about the “trot lot” on your own drum?
Tony Blair and pals get paid tens of thousands of pounds to wrestle with such dilemmas – not that they’re earning that money – I don’t. When the thinktank comes a-knocking maybe then it’ll be worth my time. Till then, I’m enjoying the view from the moral highground.
Right, Charles first. Examples 1, 2, 3 and 5 are *not* “atrocities”. The first three are operations of war and the fifth is, by your own definition, an “abuse” not an atrocity. (It was also pursued through the courts by the US government!) Number 4 (if we are thinking of the same incident) was an act carried out by an individual soldier, not an “atrocity” committed by the USA. If I may say so, I find the way in which those of the extreme Left and Right gang-bang the meaning out of words by using them out of context and in the service of their own political agenda to be, er, atrocious! There are, and have been, events in human history which really do deserve (if that’s quite the word) to be described as “atrocities” but I haven’t seen anything near it the recent Iraq imbroglio. You do a dis-service to your own genuinely held convictions by this sort of gross exaggeration.
Now to Justin. I’m not trying to catch you out with semantics. I am merely suggesting a thought experiment which will face you up to some unpleasant facts of life (as unpleasant to me, as to you, by the way!) I say again, were you to be in a position of power (I used the word ‘prince’ in the Machiavellian sense of any ruler, anywhere, anytime), would you put the interests of your country *before* some policy of moral altruism involving the good of Mankind? If, but only if, your answer is ‘yes’, then on the assumption that you are a democrat seeking election, why would I vote for you?
“Examples 1, 2, 3 and 5 are *not* “atrocitiesâ€Â. The first three are operations of war and the fifth is, by your own definition, an “abuse†not an atrocity.”
‘Operations of war’. Yes. Atrocious operations of war. I would consider the 2004 assualt on Fallujah cruel and inhumane. It was certainly unnecessary. In the context of Iraq, I would consider the use of aerial bombardment and incendiary weapons in civilian areas cruel and inhumane. It is also unnecessary. It may be that the examples (two) we have seen on film of US combatants executing the injured are unrepresentative: I suspect, however, that they are a product of the culture of the occupying force, and as such, represent cruel and inhumane behaviour. Perhaps the abuse of detainees stops short of ‘atrocity’ – I’d wager it won’t, however, seem worthy of humankind in decades to come.
Even if the invasion of Iraq could have been justified in some way, it did not have to be prosecuted as it has been. The Americans quite clearly do not treat the Iraqis as equals: this is why they feel at liberty to drop bombs on their houses. The fact that they have the capability to drop more bombs than they do is no excuse. The fact that larger scale abuses have been committed in the past, by others, is no excuse.
Even someone as morally compromised as Clinton didn’t commit atrocities on the scale of this administration. He is, after all, remembered for blowjobs not blowback.
Which I would say is a gross lapse of emphasis by the media. How, precisely, is dropping bombs on civilians in Belgrade because of the actions of their dictatorial leader any less atrocious than dropping bombs on civilians in Baghdad because of the actions of their dictatorial leader?
Or is this a colour thing? That whites are all historically guilty so that bombing them is inherently less bad than bombing brown people? Is this, perhaps, a demonstration of that hitherto imcomprehensible phrase “unwitting racism”?
But then again, perhaps not. After all, some of the most indiscriminate bombing raids on the Iraqis were carried out by Clinton. Oh, and let’s not forget that he was complicit in the maintainence of the deeply damaging sanctions on Iraq; the sanctions that meant that, at the time that we invaded, although ordinary Iraqis were starving and short of medicines (or gassed to death, of course), Saddam Hussein was in the process of constructing nine new palaces and was, allegedly, able to withdraw over $3 billion from the Baghdad bank. It is difficult to remember, I know, but Iraq was hardly a paradise before we invaded (note, please, that I am not justifying the invasion at this point).
One could also argue that Clinton’s negligance on terrorist incidents, such as the first World Trade Centre bombing and the attack on the USS Cole, was partially responsible for 9/11 and the deaths of those 3,000 people (giving the lie, I suspect, to David Duff’s assessment of what Clinton’s actions would have been after that incident). You could, with a certain amount of justification, say that I am just being silly here, but I believe that it could be argued that Clinton’s lack of action was, in some cases, as bad as Bush’s reaction has been.
I know that everyone has forgotten these things in the rather puerile excitement surrounding the sucking of Clinton’s cock by his intern, but it doesn’t make them any less true. It’s just makes it sad that, whilst he felt he had to lie about being fellated by a woman not his wife, he never felt that he had to lie about bombing innocent civilians in both Iraq and the Balkans.
DK
After all, some of the most indiscriminate bombing raids on the Iraqis were carried out by Clinton.
Operations Desert Strike and Desert Fox.
And more detail on the Clinton years in Iraq.
DK
If DD’s analysis of the way government works is indeed accurate, then I find myself shocked by the naivety of our rulers, and indeed, of all rulers anywhere, anytime.
Imagine finding yourself in a position where you were subject to the grand delusion that you (along, presumably, with your closest advisors) knew for sure what the national interests of your country were at that moment and could therefore pursue them by any means necessary, safe in the knowledge that, so long as you kept the goal in sight, everything would be OK.
If of a sceptical persuasion, one might conclude that this delusion has led to some of the most egregious unintended consequences in the history of humanity (e.g., 9/11, climate change). The same sceptical individual might also then conclude that the delusion of a general interest of humanity, expressed through international law, might be a slightly less risky one to convince yourself of, and vote (or organise) accordingly.
You are right of course…the President of the US has no idea of the national interest, that knowledge lies with the media. And Bush’s big “mistake” has been to fail to accord the media the respect they so clearly deserve. Even worse, he doesn’t speak their language (literally)and has a bizzare view that the US is bound by its own legislature whereas everyone knows that it should be bound by international law. His petty objection that since this is determined by the UN – an unelected institution packed full of DD’s Princes – just shows how ignorant he is.
Get real. It’s bad enough having Europe tell us what is lawful, but this kleptocracy? Face it, all countries will pursue foreign policy in their own interests, and the less democratic the country the more the interests are personal to the leadership. Deal with it. There is no such thing as an international community, nor is their “international law”. The UN oppossed the invasion of Iraq because France, China and Russia in particular did. Do wwe honestly believe they were not acting in self interest? Saddamm knew that, which is why he deliberately targetted them. Instead of complaining that the US does too much – or not enough – maybe a bit more time should be spent on dealing with the atrocities going on in Sudan or the Congo or Zimbabwe, or Burma. Let’s put our notions of “International law” to work there shall we? Sure the US wouldn’t object. And maybe it might be a bit more grown up if we stop trying to make ourselves feel clever and important by calling democratically-elected university-educated people morons.
Mr T, I don’t know if your remark was entirely directed at my comment or also at Justin’s post. For my part, I was merely suggesting that the idea that there is a ‘national interest’ independent of the interests of other countries and that ‘princes’ govern best when they believe that there is was a bit strange, and indeed, needs a bit of reality injecting into it.
To ‘get real’ about an issue like environmental depletion, climate change, population control – or even something like ‘international terrorism’, needs forms of international cooperation that currently are in much need of being realised, and to which the US (as other nations, developed and not) is entirely opposed, in contradiction of its interests as a member of an interdependent world.
Rochenko, it was really delivered at the whole thread. My point is that the so called international institutions such as the UN are not only subject to huge national interest but deeply hypocritical. The UN will spend enormous amounts of effort criticising the US over Guantanamo while the member for Sudan or Congo or Zimbabwe is allowed to pretend that real huge scale atrocities are not going on in their home countries. Celebrities campain against Arnie passing the death sentence on a gang killer while nobody dares question China’s 3000+ executions each year. It is frankly like teenagers criticiing their parents; it makes them feel big and clever and it’s safe. It’s also rather pointless.
Anyone contemplating arguing the toss with David Duff on this subject, might want to read this, before deciding not to bother.
Or perhaps DD needs to take a step back by about three years to put these so-called “operations of war” into context. That’s if his imagination can stretch to that extent. The unequivocal statement in International Law is:
What this means is that every act of violence that the US army commits in Iraq as a consequence of its unprovoked invasion is a crime. The excuses are irrelevant since the US soldiers should not be there at all.
I’m grateful to Mark for saving me the trouble of attempting to introduce some reality to this thread. No ‘prince’ in his right mind would ever allow the UN, one of the biggest collections of gangsters and mass murders to be found outside of Sing Sing (oh dear, I’m showing my age because Sing Sing is no longer in use, I think!)
One commenter alluded to the difficulty of defining what actually *is* in the national interest, and of course, the answer is that no-one knows for sure because the future, despite what silly old Karl thought, is unknowable. It is up to ‘princes’ to use their best wit and intelligence to decide but only history will be the final judge. However, if a ‘prince’ tells you that henceforth he will follow a foreign policy based on, say, the ten commandments, or, for example, on what he thinks is best for the people in a foreign country, then one would have to be deaf, dumb, blind and possess no sense of smell in order to vote for him!
‘Rochenko’ tells us that “If DD’s analysis of the way government works is indeed accurate, then I find myself shocked by the naivety of our rulers, and indeed, of all rulers anywhere, anytime” to which I can only add that with one or two rare exceptions (Bismark, Talleyrand, Palmerston, Lord Salisbury, the Reagan/Thatcher partnership) so am I.
I too have had my “theoretical” run-ins with David Duff – hence my refusal to bite on this occasion.
His “thought experiments” are little more than traps designed to confirm his prejudices about those he wittily refers to as “the trot lot”.
Now, now, Justin! It was a fair question; after all, it is you who appear to be advocating the notion that ‘princes’ should act for reasons other than the benefit of their own nation. I am merely trying to elicit a confirmation or denial from you. If you wish to save time, just type ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
Yes.
‘David’, I think you may have misunderstood my point slightly: to imagine that the national interest can be defined in isolation from the interests of other nations may once have had some utility. The naivety to which I referred is that of realpolitikers (Reagan and his advisors providing a fabulous example) who imagine that pursuing what they believe to be their (generally short term) interests with an eye solely on what is expeditious isn’t going to result in all kinds of unexpected repercussions.
Machiavelli would have had some harsh words to say about such people, but then he was a republican and not a ‘realist’. In a world where the complexity of the economic and political interactions between nations makes the future ever more uncertain, then the last thing anyone needs is a pseudo-Hobbesian worldview in which ‘national interest’ is the sole criterion fo action. And in such a world, robust international institutions of some kind are required.
Rochenko, sorry, I placed inverted commas round your name in the belief, perhaps mistaken, that it was a pseudonym. Please tell me if I’m wrong.
Anyway, you’re a good chap because you gave me a smile, something that rarely crosses my flinty features these days. You write, with my emphasis added: “to imagine that the national interest can be defined in isolation from the interests of other nations *may once* have had some utility” – you mean, like the whole of recorded history up until now, I assume! The national interest can only *ever* be defined in isolation, however, the means to achieve it must definitely take other nations into account.
Given my insistence that the future can never be foretold then your remark that policy is likely “to result in all kinds of unexpected repercussions” is, if I may say so, an example of ’stating the bleedin’ obvious’! (I should warn you at this point, that exactly the same criterian applies to so-called ‘moralistic’ policies as well. The ‘future’ is an equal-opportunities nut-kicker!)
Finally, by “Reagan” I assume you mean the president who finished off the Soviets and raised the American economy to new heights? If you were looking (for your own anti-American reasons) for a totally dim and inept president, why not pick Jimmy ‘Peanut’ Carter even if he was, er, moralistic!
Finally, to our honest host. Well done, Sir, “tell truth and shame the Devil”, er, but don’t try your luck in politics!
No, pseudonym it is. I merely made the same assumption in your case: Duff, indeed. You have my sympathies.
I still haven’t quite got you on track, it seems, as you’re veering around wildly in all sorts of wrong directions (in the process chucking out a few shot-in-the-dark epithets – ‘moralistic’ & ‘anti-American’ indeed. I can say with assurance that you won’t find me falling into either camp). Anyway, allow me one more go.
First, my remarks on unintended consequences are not just echoing your observations. The suggestion was that to separate the end and the means to that end in the way you describe is a fabulous way to massively increase the unpredictability of the consequences of your actions. For example (and here’s the Reagan link), the connections between the US interventions in Afghanistan in the 80s and the current ’situation’.
This separation of end and means is simply not possible in the period of history in which we live. It’s a legacy of the 19th century we need to learn to do without, for very realistic reasons, involving resource depletion, environmental damage, and the results of spreading economic and political instability, amongst others. Any definition of the national interest in these interdependent conditions has itself to be undertaken in the context of an idea of the general interest – as indeed it always is, whether the decisions are being taken by ‘moralists’ or realpolitikers. The difference between these viewpoints lies only in the kind of general interest being posited (I note that Larry made a similar point in the discussion he gives a link to above).
If that is not done, then ‘blowback’ is not just an accident, it is being invited, almost as if there were some kind of self-destructive pathology behind the decision making. And arguably it was always so, only now the nature of the problem is particularly obvious. You might try googling ‘tragedy of the commons’ to get an idea of the logic governing the kind of situation I have in mind.
Your concept of national interest is quaint enough. Such a shame that it is still believed in, tooth fairy style, by the fatheads who rule us.
It strikes me that the difference between the Duff-ites and the rest of the gang here is that the Duff-ites believe in the nation-state, and the rest of you don’t. The rest follows logically…
bonnie tyler: total eclipse of the heart…
bonnie tyler: total eclipse of the heart bonnie tyler god gave love to you mp3 bonnie tyler sally comes around mp3…