Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

London's bridge has fallen down

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • London's bridge has fallen down

    Niall Ferguson:

    London's bridge has fallen down

    Tony Blair's simplistic foreign policy landed him in Bush's lap and isolated from continental Europe.


    May 7, 2007

    AS TONY BLAIR prepares to step down after 10 years as British prime minister, he has surely learned one thing: Foreign policy is not something you can make up as you go along. The greatest statesmen all thought long and deeply about history before entering the realm of power. Unfortunately, like his nemesis on the other side of the Atlantic, George W. Bush, Blair evinced little interest in international affairs before reaching the top of the political greasy pole. It has shown.

    In the 1983 general election when he was elected to Parliament, for example, Blair toed the Labor Party line, which envisaged British withdrawal from the European Economic Community and unilateral nuclear disarmament. As prime minister, by contrast, he set out to be a more committed European than his two Conservative predecessors, while at the same time affirming his faith in the Atlantic alliance with the United States and renewing Britain's more or less independent nuclear deterrent.

    Superficially, this was a coherent foreign policy, even if it was largely improvised. In Timothy Garton Ash's term, Blair was attempting to be the "bridge" between the United States and continental Europe, while at the same time maintaining a degree of national autonomy. Yet the events of the past 10 years have revealed this bridge to be a very rickety edifice.

    It turns out that there are fundamental conflicts between Britain's commitment to "ever closer" European integration, its supposedly "special relationship" with the United States and its national self-interest.

    It is easy to forget how eager Blair was to talk the European talk in the first four years of his premiership. The holidays in Italy set the scene. So what was it that turned Tuscan Tony into Texan Tony? It is often assumed that it was Sept. 11, 2001. At the Labor Party conference, just three weeks after the terrorist attacks, Blair described 9/11 as "a turning point in history, where we confront the dangers of the future and assess the choices facing humankind."

    Yet the real turning point for Blair's foreign policy had in fact come earlier. Twice before 9/11 he had marveled at the remarkable efficacy of Western military power — first in Serbia in 1999, then in Sierra Leone the following year. Short, sharp interventions in civil conflicts in both these countries had spectacularly positive results. Serbia went from ethnic cleansing to elections. Sierra Leone went from decapitations to democracy.

    In Blair's mind, then, the doctrine of liberal or humanitarian interventionism was already fully formed. The notion of the inviolable sovereignty of the nation-state could be discarded, central though it had long been to the international system.
    A state that engaged in genocide — or, by extension, terrorism — forfeited its rights. As Blair observed, it had been possible to justify NATO's intervention in Kosovo only by qualifying "the principle of noninterference … in important respects".

    Thus, when 9/11 happened, no other world leader was more ready to embrace a U.S. policy of retaliation that meant violating the sovereignty of multiple nation-states — not only those that were invaded but also those whose nationals were held captive in legal limbo.

    With minimal hesitation, Blair accepted the U.S. argument that the Iraqi dictator not only possessed weapons of mass destruction but was also a sponsor of terrorism. When he addressed the House of Commons on March 18, 2003 — the most precarious moment of his time in office — he somehow managed to link the chemical and biological weapons the U.N. inspectors had not been able to trace in Iraq to the possibility of a terrorist attack comparable with 9/11.


    Having embarked on this course, however, Blair soon found his much-vaunted Atlantic bridge crumbling. The French and the Germans led the European opposition to military action against Iraq, dashing any hope of a legitimating second U.N. resolution. Meanwhile, at home, there was dismay from one end of the political spectrum to the other. The costs of backing the U.S. were obvious. But what were the benefits? One U.S. State Department official candidly described the relationship between Bush and Blair as "one-sided…. There was nothing, no payback, no sense of reciprocity." Bush's crudely condescending salutation at a G-8 summit — "Yo, Blair" — said it all.


    What had been a bridge looked suddenly like a forlorn jetty. And Blair has been standing there ever since, feebly shadowing American policy, not only toward Iraq but also toward Israel and the Palestinians, and Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    In foreign policy, it is often the idealists who do the most harm. Blair's tragedy was that, though he was a hard-bitten realist in the realm of domestic politics, he was an ingénue when it came to international relations, a beginner who drew a dangerously simplistic inference from two early successes. The road to Baghdad led through Belgrade and Freetown, but it was a wrong turn.

    [email protected]

    London's bridge has fallen down - Los Angeles Times
    Blair must have been sincere in his endeavours.

    But alas, sincerity and Realpolitik are not compatible.

    A sad end to a promising leader!


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    Tony Blair's simplistic foreign policy landed him in Bush's lap
    Because their of one mind regarding foreign policy that makes Blair Bush's poodle?

    and isolated from continental Europe.
    And this is bad because...
    "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
    - Thomas Jefferson

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post
      And this is bad because...
      ;)
      "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson

      Comment


      • #4
        Either way it seems the British aren't happy.

        Either they be a lapdog to the US (which they have proven they currently are) or they play a greater role in the "corrupt and freedom-crushing" EU.

        Why they don't want a relationship where they would be treated as equal (the EU) is beyond me........trying to gloss it over with the claims they're "not European" is just pathetic, as geography pretty much dicates that they are.
        Appeasment to the US doesn't suit the Brits, they can surely do better.

        But hey, maybe I'm just rambling, seeing as nothing British since the Magna carta has made much sense to me .
        Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
        - John Stuart Mill.

        Comment


        • #5
          Either they be a lapdog to the US (which they have proven they currently are) or they play a greater role in the "corrupt and freedom-crushing" EU.
          How have they proven that they're our lapdog? Was Roosovelt Churchill's lapdog, or vice-versa? Because two nations have done something necessary in the face of world-wide opposition (excluding members of the coalition) proves two things: one, together, British and Americans can do anything they want, and no one (except God) can stop them; 2, the British and Americans have guts that no one else has. *

          Why they don't want a relationship where they would be treated as equal (the EU) is beyond me........trying to gloss it over with the claims they're "not European" is just pathetic, as geography pretty much dicates that they are.
          Appeasment to the US doesn't suit the Brits, they can surely do better.
          Treated as equal? They can be treated as they deserve to be treated by making their own decisions independent of a socialist organization.

          Their history, and culture proves them to be vastly different from other European countries. Egypt is in Africa, but they don't share the same African heritage as the other African nations do. The same could be said for all of North Africa. And it applies to Britain in regard to Europe.

          Yeah, I'm sure they could. Appeasment to a bunch of third-rate countries (with one or two exceptions-well, Germany) who ban together under a banner of supposed "peace", and change just to make them feel better about their own third-rate status.

          But hey, maybe I'm just rambling, seeing as nothing British since the Magna carta has made much sense to me .
          I personally admired the crushing of the 1798 rebellion. ;)




          * Members of the coalition are excluded from the bashing, but the U.S., and Britain were the main players.
          Last edited by ExNavyAmerican; 08 May 07,, 14:20.
          "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
          - Thomas Jefferson

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post
            1)How have they proven that they're our lapdog? Was Roosovelt Churchill's lapdog, or vice-versa? Because two nations have done something necessary in the face of world-wide opposition (excluding members of the coalition) proves two things: one, together, British and Americans can do anything they want, and no one (except God) can stop them; 2, the British and Americans have guts that no one else has. *



            2)Treated as equal? They can be treated as they deserve to be treated by making their own decisions independent of a socialist organization.

            3) Their history, and culture proves them to be vastly different from other European countries. Egypt is in Africa, but they don't share the same African heritage as the other African nations do. The same could be said for all of North Africa. And it applies to Britain in regard to Europe.

            4) Yeah, I'm sure they could. Appeasment to a bunch of third-rate countries (with one or two exceptions-well, Germany) who ban together under a banner of supposed "peace", and change just to make them feel better about their own third-rate status.



            5) I personally admired the crushing of the 1798 rebellion. ;)




            * Members of the coalition are excluded, but the U.S., and Britain were the main players.
            1) Neccisary?
            Worldwide oppostion was there for a reason, Believe me.

            2) This is the one that got me laughing!
            I live in a country that spends less of it's GDP on government spending than yours, has lower corporate tax, is above the US on GDP per capita and the HDMI index.
            We're less Socialist than you and we're proud Europeans and members of the EU.
            Go read a book on the EU, which is possibly the world's fairest democratic instituation (any member can leave at any time, a full parliment representing everyone), before coming out with crap like that.

            3) No, Britain has largely been tied to the Rest of Europe for centuries.
            It's only recently (it was establised in Napoleonic times) that a false feeling of "difference" came up.

            4) Third-rate countries?
            Germany, France, Italy and Spain are trillion dollar economies.
            Ireland and Luxemburgh have the most productive workforces in the world.
            The EU has the world's largest economy.
            So you guys must be 4th rate, eh?

            5) Oh we got free in the end, admire muggers, rapists, thugs all you like, Ireland deserves more praise:
            We stuck to our beliefs (Catholicism) and our desire for freedom, and we got it......and we love it all, trust me, don't talk about things you don't understand.
            Last edited by crooks; 08 May 07,, 14:36.
            Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
            - John Stuart Mill.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by crooks View Post
              Either way it seems the British aren't happy.



              But hey, maybe I'm just rambling, seeing as nothing British since the Magna carta has made much sense to me .
              And you are now stating for the record that Eire is not part of the British Isles?
              Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by crooks View Post
                1) Neccisary?
                Worldwide oppostion was there for a reason, Believe me.
                I won't believe you, but let's run from that off topic subject while we're ahead.

                2) This is the one that got me laughing!
                I live in a country that spends less of it's GDP on government spending than yours, has lower corporate tax, is above the US on GDP per capita and the HDMI index.
                We're less Socialist than you and we're proud Europeans and members of the EU.
                Go read a book on the EU, which is possibly the world's fairest democratic instituation (any member can leave at any time, a full parliment representing everyone), before coming out with crap like that.
                Is a welfare state, has universal health care, is pacifist. Less socialist? All those I mentioned are examples of a socialist society.

                A parliament? You mean the one that has no power of legislation?

                3) No, Britain has largely been tied to the Rest of Europe for centuries.
                It's only recently (it was establised in Napoleonic times) that a false feeling of "difference" came up.
                No, not really. It dates back to the schism between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome. After that, England was the target of continental attempts at grafting it back in to the Church. It was constantly at war with most, if not all, members of the continent.

                Originally posted by crooks View Post
                4) Third-rate countries?
                Germany, France, Italy and Spain are trillion dollar economies.
                Ireland and Luxemburgh have the most productive workforces in the world.
                The EU has the world's largest economy.
                So you guys must be 4th rate, eh?
                The EU is an international organization: it is not a country.

                I know all of this, though the United States economy remains the largest (again, the EU is not a country), many countries (not just European) have stronger economies than the U.S. But if Russia invaded Europe tomorrow, who would defend you? Who massed troops along the iron curtain during the cold war? Can you enforce your will in another part of the world? Who is getting invaded by Moslems, and not doing anything about? Many Euopeans, as well as most non-Europeans fear that in the next 50 years, Europe will have been finally overrun by its enemy of old: Islam. This time, it will have gone down without a fight. European countries, though Germany and even France are powerful, are third-rate in power, and therefore their wealth means nothing. What is wealth when you're unwilling to defend it? Ever here of the Minoan civilization?

                Originally posted by crooks View Post
                5) Oh we got free in the end, admire muggers, rapists, thugs all you like, Ireland deserves more praise:
                We stuck to our beliefs (Catholicism) and our desire for freedom, and we got it......and we love it all, trust me, don't talk about things you don't understand.
                Are you implying that Ireland has none of these? A heaven on Earht is it?

                I admire Ireland's persistent drive towards freedom, but the European mentality now is quite pacifist; would you fight for it now? Not you specifically, but your country? What about Europe as a whole? You may have to if you keep up this open-border policy with the Moslems.
                "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
                - Thomas Jefferson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post
                  I won't believe you, but let's run from that off topic subject while we're ahead.



                  1) Is a welfare state, has universal health care, is pacifist. Less socialist? All those I mentioned are examples of a socialist society.

                  A parliament? You mean the one that has no power of legislation?



                  2) No, not really. It dates back to the schism between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome. After that, England was the target of continental attempts at grafting it back in to the Church. It was constantly at war with most, if not all, members of the continent.



                  3) The EU is an international organization: it is not a country.

                  I know all of this, though the United States economy remains the largest (again, the EU is not a country), many countries (not just European) have stronger economies than the U.S. But if Russia invaded Europe tomorrow, who would defend you? Who massed troops along the iron curtain during the cold war? Can you enforce your will in another part of the world? Who is getting invaded by Moslems, and not doing anything about? Many Euopeans, as well as most non-Europeans fear that in the next 50 years, Europe will have been finally overrun by its enemy of old: Islam. This time, it will have gone down without a fight. European countries, though Germany and even France are powerful, are third-rate in power, and therefore their wealth means nothing. What is wealth when you're unwilling to defend it? Ever here of the Minoan civilization?



                  4) Are you implying that Ireland has none of these? A heaven on Earht is it?

                  I admire Ireland's persistent drive towards freedom, but the European mentality now is quite pacifist; would you fight for it now? Not you specifically, but your country? What about Europe as a whole? You may have to if you keep up this open-border policy with the Moslems.
                  1) We're not a welfare state either, you know .

                  2) Yes really!
                  Relations bittered after the schism, no doubt about that, but there was still a sense of Europeaness about them.

                  3) The point I was making is that countries that you called "third-rate" have a larger economy than your country.
                  I never said anything about the EU being a country, I'm against the "superstate" idea.
                  And tbh, My country isn't in any danger from anyone, though I believe the French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Probably eve Swiss armies would fight if we faced an invasion from the east........All modern armies, the EU can defend itself without US aid (though the US could greatly help).

                  I do not believe Islam will overrun us, it's a ridiculous idea pushed by bigots.
                  It's like the right-wing version of the 9-11 conspiracy ....I live here, you don't, and let me tell you first hand, it ain't gonna happen (at least here).

                  4) Of course not, Ireland has PLENTY of people like that, but we've never sent them to another country ENA, with the intent of forcing the populous to surrender by...persuding them with thuggish means.

                  The EU mentality is one of Peace.....and tolerence.
                  Not seeing shadows everywhere, and closing borders, we don't use internment camps and realise that "Moslems" are 1 billion strong, we shouldn't discriminate the majority because of what a tiny fraction do.

                  And Glyn, "british isles" is a term the British invented, we Irish don't use it, as we are not British.
                  I understand that it's meant as a geographic term, but it's still quite offensive here.
                  Last edited by crooks; 08 May 07,, 15:29.
                  Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
                  - John Stuart Mill.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I wonder if the US is all Anglo Saxon.

                    If at least two third are not Anglo Saxon (accepted as 'absolute majority' in many democracies), then the angle that US and UK are 'cousins' is bit overworked!

                    And in the US, how many are genetically 'pure' Anglo Saxons?

                    The yearning to be identified is because the US is a power to be reckoned with.

                    Australians have good reasons to be affiliated with UK than the US (even their flag indicates it so) and yet they identify with the US and not UK! Power attracts for affiliation.

                    EU is an organisation or is it a union of countries? Organisations don't have Parliament. EU has a Parliament! But is it a nation?


                    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                    HAKUNA MATATA

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      [QUOTE=crooks;372267]1)

                      And Glyn, "british isles" is a term the British invented, we Irish don't use it, as we are not British.
                      I understand that it's meant as a geographic term, but it's still quite offensive here.

                      I was using it as a geographical term. The first to write about it was Pytheas the Greek (three centuries before Pliny and Diodorus) who called it Brettanaa. Thus the Romans knew about it long before they invaded. Their word for it was Britannia so there is well over 2,000 years of history behind the name. Britain (as it became) consisted of five main nations, Hibernia (Ireland), Scotia (Scotland) Wallia (Wales - but there were other variants of the spelling) Kernow (Cornwall) and after the mass settlement of the Angles we had Anglia (England). England is the most recent nation within the British Isles and the most numerous. All the nations in their constituent countries are quite correctly collectively known as the British Isles. Although you won't thank me for saying so, the Irish are inescapably British.:)
                      Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Could it be that the British do not identify with Europe because it has a history of wars with most of them and hence it is hangup from historical antecedents?

                        But then, so was it with the US during the American War of Independence.

                        What could be the reason?

                        An interesting point which someone could clarify.


                        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                        HAKUNA MATATA

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ray View Post
                          Could it be that the British do not identify with Europe because it has a history of wars with most of them and hence it is hangup from historical antecedents?
                          Well, that's one of the reasons I believe causes the feeling in Britons.

                          But then, so was it with the US during the American War of Independence.
                          We had two wars with them, and for most of the 19th century, and into the 20th century we antagonized each other. After WWI, there was a faction within the U.S. that wanted us to become a world power to replace Britain. Britain, having just won a war maintaing its power, was worried about this. The U.S. military formed very serious war plans that dealt with fighting the British Empire. I don't know when the antagonism stopped-possibly WWII.

                          What could be the reason?
                          Because, regardless of the ethnic mix within European descended Americans (German descended Americans are the majority, actually), America was formed on British principles of freedom, we were ruled by Britain, and English is our language. We have a lot of immigrants from other European countries, we've always had a sizeable Chinese contingent, and now a lot from Latin America; but we can never, never, NEVER forget where we came from.
                          "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
                          - Thomas Jefferson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            So American are Germans, who speak English! ;) :)


                            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                            HAKUNA MATATA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So American are Germans, who speak English!


                              But seriously, Americans are Americans who owe what our founding fathers did to Britain.
                              "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
                              - Thomas Jefferson

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X