President Blair is leaving the building...
TOOTS
Posts: 114MI6 Agent
What do the Brits think about James Bond's boss for the past 10 years leaving Her Majesty's Service?
Comments
Anyway, tread cautiously, folks. . .political discussions have a nasty tendency to get out of hand.
He has been a friend to the US which wasn't easy -that was very much appreciated.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
There's only one main reason I'll mourn the passing of Blair, and that's Gordon Brown.
Oh, should it have been King Blair?
BTW, Moonraker 5, I love your signature tune, 'Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'. What a beautiful piece of music.
Makes me proud to feel Scottish!
In my opinion Germany and France has been better friends, at least when it comes to Iraq.
Let me use a comparison to explain myself:
You are a kid who has heard the neighbour has a lot of good apples in his garden and you want to sneak over and get the apples. You ask the opther kids in the street to join you.
Tony says:"Great idea! I'll join you!"
Jaques says:"No, don't go! There probably aren't any apples and the neighbour's dog bites"
It turnes out there were no apples but a dangerous dog.
Who was the best friend, Tony or Jaques?
...<incoming>...
PS...considering Gordon has been speaking out on all matter of stuff outwith his remit recently, he's still not mentioned the train wreck that is our foreign policy. I notice Jack Straw, his campaign manager, is already denying that the relationship with Washington will cool. But it will; Brown is more left leaning than Blair, and he's also a Scotsman and less inclined to pick up on that kind of bullish world view. And besides, he's got the electorate that dumped Labour in droves last week to win back.
(On a side note, it'll also be interesting to see how a Scottish Prime Minister takes on a minority Nationalist goverment in Edinburgh)
Nothing like amateur analysis/analogizing to lighten my morning. {[]
On Blair, I blow hot and cold. Historically, I guess I would be a Tory in the UK, so when Labour and Blair took over, I wasn't thrilled. Gradually, I've come to appreciate him more, probably because my own views have shifted a little left, and because I like young, charismatic leaders.
I appreciate Blair's loyal friendship to the US, even though I think we botched it horribly in Iraq. One fallout of the last 5 years is that, in this country, Blair tends to be viewed only through that lens -- how he treats us. Unless you have the time and interest to really understand domestic UK politics (I have the latter, not the former) it's often difficult for us over here to see him in a more well-rounded light. For example, I am clueless as to all the factors cited by M5.
As an observer, I would offer two general opinions:
1) Ten years is probably too long for anyone to lead the government in a mature democracy. I can see why people in the UK are sick of Blair.
2) British politics seem infinitely healthier and more interesting than those here. Our two-party, extremist system is stifling at the moment.
I've resisted talking politics on this site for a long time, but what the hell. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
The analogy would be more accurate if Jacques were to say: "There probably aren't any apples and the neighbour's dog bites." Then, turning to Heinrich, whispers: "And more importantly, those fools will be upsetting important business I have with the dog, and the flow of kickbacks I have been receiving from the food-for-oranges program."
I have no problem with France -- a country that I grew up in and have a great deal of affection for -- putting its interests first. That's what countries do. But let's not pretend it's something other than what it is.
I think the U.K. (and its Commonwealth) and the United States, for historical and cultural reasons, have a relationship that transcends naked self-interest, at least to some degree. I think that's worth preserving. I am not a supporter of President Bush or the war in Iraq. But I'm grateful nonetheless to Mr. Blair (and Mr. Howard) for standing by the United States even when it screws up, even at the risk of drawing the ire of his own people. It's at times like these that you find out who your friends really are.
Here's a clip from the show shortly after the Labour 97 (it really doesn't feel like 10 years ago!) election victory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvM_fiRSiEc
I remember how novel it seemed having Labour win an election. They were always runners-up when I was a kid in the 80's, and of course in the 1992 election.
I'm an anti-Iraq war liberal, so my feelings on Blair's contribution, in that regard, should be pretty clear.
Tony Blair, certainly, felt that there was a special relationship which transcended naked self-interest. Indeed, he forfeited public support in pursuit of a very close relationship with the Bush Administration. But while London understood the relationship as special, this does not seem replicated in Washington. There are plenty of examples to demonstrate this. The completely illegal steel-tariff the Bush Administration implemented, finally rescinded after more than a year, was a perfect example of the US looking after her own interests in a highly protectionist fashion. The extradition of the 'Natwest Three' is another example. The complete lack of co-operation on the part of the US military in the investigation of friendly fire incidents has shown the one-sided nature of much of this relationship.
Highhopes, you say that France puts its interests first. But that is *exactly* what the United States does too. This is has always been the case in the post-war era and under different Administrations. I thoroughly enjoy the United States and as an Atlantacist European value a healthy and constructive relationship with US Administrations. However, to throw our own national interest out of the window for some 'special relationship', the 'specialness' of which is not felt in US policy-making circles, seems to me a dereliction of duty.
Other prime ministers valued a close and co-operative relationship with the United States and acted as an ally of the superpower. Margaret Thatcher's belief in a strong US/UK alliance cannot be doubted, but she was utterly realistic about US foreign policy and was not exactly a submissive partner. Harold Macmillan, one of our great post-war prime ministers, mended the relationship after Suez but never allowed the British government to act in a subservient fashion. Previous British governments felt an attachment to the US, but fostered a co-operative relationship with the protection of British interests as the primary objective. To do otherwise, I have concluded over recent years, is naïve.
There are, of course, positive aspects to Tony Blair's time as prime minister. Blair built on the success of the Major government to achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Blair moved Britain into a more constructive role in Europe. He also helped promote a more tolerant society. In so many other respects, however, he failed by his own standards. Blair talked of radical reform of the public services for improvement, yet the reforms were half-baked and small-scale. He was never as daring as he had hoped to be on the Europe, ducking out of important questions on Europe's future. Above all he was constrained by a bizarre and unhealthy partnership with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Blair also did a great deal of damage to politics. By claiming a privileged place as 'whiter than white', he engendered deep cynicism and distrust by behaving as just another grubby politician with regards to party financing. All governments spin, but the way in which Blair's government used spin is a poisonous legacy. David Kelly, anyone? Blair, dangerously, has also 'presidentialised' British politics. The manner of his departure is unprecedented in Britain and illustrates an enormous degree of self-centredness. Blair has put his own career above the interests of his party. But the Labour party has let him do this. Indeed, the way in which Blair has forced the Labour party into all sorts of things completely against its instincts is hilarious. The total ineptitude of the Labour party, letting him plough on despite the depths of unpopularity, is a hallmark of the later Blair years.
The 'presidentialisation' of British politics is worrying. In a modern age of course political leaders will be the centre of attention, but Blair's self-absorption has been detrimental to the political process. The one word which comes to mind when considering Tony Blair is 'hubris'.
I welcome Tony Blair's (eventual) departure. History would have judged him more kindly had he departed earlier with a touch more humility.
It is also part of the reason why I'm so against the UK replacing its nuclear deterrent. It is not independent, we lease the missiles from the US and need them to hand over the keys whenever it needs to be fired. Sorry, but I don't want to be reliant on absolutely any foreigner if we ever reach the terrifying moment of having to launch one. The French, yet again, have the right idea of developing their own independent system.
I'm with much of what L880 has already said (though I am a little bit more of an enthusiastic European than he is, despite having a tendency to lean in the same political direction). Tony Blair's style of politics has damaged the public's perception of politicians and the political process. For once, and I never thought I'd hear myself say this, I was really very happy at the way the campaign for the Scottish Parliament unfolded. Given it's proportional representation system and the fact that four main parties all play a major part in the running of parliament, it was a far more effective campaign than the last UK general election one.
His promise to end sleaze and corruption has also backfired enormously; presiding over one of the most distrustful bunch I've ever seen. I've never been a Labour supporter, but to a certain extent I miss old Labour, free of spin and media exploitation.
And as for a leader supporting another nation over the will of his people, that's just wrong. An elected leader is a representative of the people, answerable to us and us only. It is that arrogance, that total disregard for democracy and parliament, that has earned him the grim title of President Blair and it will be that shadow that will haunt his name in the history books. The will of the British people should come first to our leaders, not the will of some foreign government.
It'll be very interesting as to how things go from now on. As L880 pointed out, the government never lived up to its promise on daring decisions on Europe. We whimped out of any real decision on the Euro, we didn't get a chance to debate the EU constitution and we squandered the 2005 UK presidency of the EU by virtually ignoring it. Blair's been too wrapped up in his own crusades, it'll be interesting to see what new approach Brown takes, if any.* Though I'm guessing he'll have to take one, because continue as it's going, Labour are facing an electoral wipeout at the next UK general election.
*Interestingly, I've just read on the BBC that Brown has pledged to restore the public's faith in politicians by making the government more accountable to parliament, setting up an independent body to oversee minister's behaviour, renewing the ministerial code of conduct and promising that the country cannot go to war without a vote in parliament. Mmmm...sounds like he's well aware of the public mood, and yet both him and Blair still insist that they had each other's full support... 8-)
EDIT: Just in reply to John Drake, one of the most memorable Blair images from the 97 election was the campaign posters used (ineffectively) against him. I still giggle when I see one though
I'm sorry you had to go to the trouble of all those keystrokes, when most seem to stem from a misread of my post.
It's true: I don't blame France for putting its interests first. My criticism was merely the earlier poster's suggesting that France's opposition to the war was based on friendship. But I don't suggest the United States and the U.K. don't, or shouldn't do the same. It is simply that they sometimes do not, and I think that can be a good thing. As for Tony Blair, I'm not going to bite too hard the hand of someone who wishes me well, even it it is misguided. He's your prime minister, you do it.
As for your other Bush-related complaints, (i.e. protectionism, etc ...), I'm sure they're valid. One of my big complaints about Bush is his idea of compromise seems to allowing the other side to do it his way.
But Bush aside, the U.S. could write its own laundry list of complaints about reciprocity and one-sideness. I have one of my own regarding not so much Britain in particular but Europe in general -- its insistence that it's the United States' responsibility to respond to every crisis, to in effect fix the world -- according to its prescription, of course -- when most if not all of the world's problems (including, if that's how one thinks of it, the United States itself, which must really annoy the U.S. bashers) are European made. Iraq, Vietnam, Africa, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- you name it -- are all part of the hangover of centuries of European (mis)rule. I'm not saying we're doing any better. But people who live in glass houses shouldn't be so quick to throw stones.
Personally, I'm willing to step back and let Europe fix the mess. Then maybe the U.S. government can take the money it spends on these foreign affairs that don't concern us and spend it on its own people for universal health care, job security, a decent retirement, five weeks vacations and the other benefits that Europeans have enjoyed for so long. That's some self-interest I can get behind.
I remember that. It caused a huge fuss. Weren't the Tories carpeted by advertising watchdogs, or some similar type of oraganisation?
Vietnam, yes certainly the French couldn't control a civil war so withdrew. But was it your problem to fix? It was no one's problem but the Vietnamese. It was a political battle, not an ethnic one; it wasn't stopping mass genocides but crusading against communism in the far east. Africa, yes, some of that's a mess too, but the UK sent its troops into Sierra Leonne in 2000 without complaint or the need for back up. The support of the Commonwealth has helped keep stability in most of the former British colonies in Africa, with the absolute failure of Zimbabwe, which is again starting to raise it's ugly head.
It's a valid view you certainly hold, but then there's always the flip side; the European view that the US meddles in everyone else's business simply to prop up it's own interests, and conveniently writes any allies it had at the time out of their version of events. So that argument will carry on ad infinitum, neither will give ground in that.
The analogy would be more accurate if Jacques were to say: "There probably aren't any apples and the neighbour's dog bites." Then, turning to Heinrich, whispers: "And more importantly, those fools will be upsetting important business I have with the dog, and the flow of kickbacks I have been receiving from the food-for-oranges program."
The first one is accurate. But you mixed up who the dog is. Saddam was the neigbour and owner of the garden. The dog (I should have written "dogs") are extremist sunnis and shias, insurgents etc. So the buisness was with the neighbour, not the dogs. By the way: did you know Condi didn't know about sunnis and shias at the time when they attacked Iraq? A reasonably bright pupil in Norway would know the two brances of islam before he/she reached the teens. I hope that would be the case in many other countries too.
I doubt Jaques and Heinrich knew how corrupt the "oil for food" program was and they certainly didn't profit from it personally. But I have to agree that France, Germany and Russia had too strong economic ties to Saddam before the war and their politics may have been influenced by that.
I believe HH might be referring to the way in which the Middle East was divided along seemingly arbitrary borders following the First World War---and the way in which it left many tribes and factions feeling betrayed and quite put upon, causing resentments against the West to fester for generations.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Another interesting post highhopes, however I do not think I misunderstood your original contention. You are, and were, saying that the US and UK enjoy a relationship which sometimes trascends national interests. The UK *has* in recent years agreed to things that could not really be described as in the national interest (I'm not referring to the Iraq War here), but this *has not* been reciprocated on the US side. In my opinion, of course.
A good example is the Extradition Act 2003. This meant that British subjects could be extradited to the US with no prima facie evidence being presented, whereas the UK had to provide such evidence in the reverse. This has been addressed, but it took several years, an enormous level of pressure and public controversy over the case of the Natwest Three.
I have holidayed in the US many times and love it there. I am also an Atlantacist and view a constructive relationship with Washington as necessary. But let us be realistic: the US government pursues its own national interest and does not appear to have much special regard for the UK. Some American people might, but that is a different thing altogether.
True enough...but the fact of when it happened doesn't mitigate anything. Many in the East blame the West for things dating back to the Christian Crusades. Focusing on recent missteps is as much a diversion as ignoring old ones, IMHO.
No government is without foibles, but I'd hate to think that the many Americans buried in Europe---due to things which occurred in the 20th Century---reflect a lack of special regard for our European cousins.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The previous discussion, however, was about the current US/UK relationship. As far as US policy is concerned I do not see particular special regard for the UK. I have read several articles which suggest that the Bush Administration now views Angela Merkel's Germany as the European power with which to do business, with little sentimentality for Britain; Spiegel magazine recently had a few excellent articles on this very theme. (Including this one, the author of which opined that "the US president neglected to thank Blair for his loyalty," and wrote of "Bush's condescending treatment of Blair," despite Blair's costly pursuit of a special relationship). This reminds me of the Bush Sr Administration which casually decided that Helmut Kohl was the primary European ally, as opposed to the British prime minister.
The US government looks after its own self-interest. That is perfectly understandable; indeed, it is advisable. Sometimes our interests will collide, and at these times a healthy and mature relationship can achieve a great deal. But let us not pretend that US policy demonstrates any noticeable degree of special regard towards the United Kingdom.
I ought to have my head examined for getting involved here.
I'll miss Tony Blair. He was no Neville Chamberlain. When Chamberlain's righteous successor arrives, no doubt the U.S. and U.K.'s interests will 'collide' once again, for the common good, in the future 8-)
They don't appreciate you, Tony. Come over here and visit---I'll buy you a drink...and a handgun B-)
POST-SCRIPT: No need for a warning, Mods---I'm outta here; no more Yank-bashing politics for me, thanks.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm not sure what Neville Chamberlain has got to do with anything.
What I meant by interests 'colliding' (a term which seems to have caused you an issue) is that the UK and the US, as well as European partners, are far more likely to have common interests than many other countries. As I have said consistently, a strong and close relationship is most welcome so that we can work together where we have common interests.
Criticism of the US is *not* the point of this thread. I have written plenty of times that I love holidaying in the US and I have met many excellent people while there. As far as the government goes, if you read my posts I have actually said that it is perfectly understandable that the US looks after its own interests first. I'm not criticising the US for not displaying much special regard for the UK, I am merely suggesting that it is incorrect to argue that the US government does.
I cannot see what has drawn you to the conclusion that I am 'Yank-bashing'. Please don't paint me as an anti-American as, genuinely, I can assure you that nothing is further from the truth.
For the full article
'Blair digging graves to make his legacy'
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=740292007
Sean Connery has given his most incendiary interview on politics, branding Tony Blair an "a***hole" making his legacy from graves in Iraq and suggesting the First Minister Jack McConnell is frustrating democracy in Scotland.
But... I won't quibble with
___________
jen07