-Caveat Lector-
<http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,248-61900,00.html>
THURSDAY JANUARY 04 2001
Why Blair has got George W so wrong
IRWIN STELZER
Tony Blair lost two big bets recently, and the British people
will have to pay up. First, he gambled that Al Gore would be the
next US President, which would mean another American
Administration supportive of his ambitions to turn Britain
towards Europe and, if necessary, away from America. Blair lost,
and the British people, whose preference for America over France,
Germany and the rest of the EU is clear, will have to pay the
bill.
Then the Prime Minister gambled that George W. Bush is as dumb,
or as lazy, or as pliable, or all three, as the British media say
he is. After all, the President-elect has shown no interest in
the �Third Way� gabfests that so engaged the attention of Bill
Clinton. And his interests run to baseball and cowboy boots �
every bit as lowbrow as Ronald Reagan�s, that other President
whom Britain�s leftish metropolitan elite found so unappealing.
On the off-chance that the American people should install this
dunce in the White House, a congratulatory telephone call, a
courtesy call on the new President, exposing him to the
unquestioned Blair charm, and all would be well. That bet, too,
has been lost: Bush, who managed to earn a graduate degree from
Harvard while Gore failed to complete two different graduate
programmes, is moving with intelligence, vigour and purpose in
directions that put him on a collision course with Blairite
policies, and that threaten the �special relationship�. Blair is
now up against it: he can no longer hunt with the hounds and run
with the foxes, as events in recent days prove.
Start with a warning shot across the bow from the Senate�s most
powerful foreign policy player, Jesse Helms. As with Bush, so
with Helms: the British media love to portray him as a dumb
country boy, with no knowledge of the world outside his native
South. Fortunately for Britain, your Ambassador in America, Sir
Christopher Meyer, knows better, and has taken pains to court
Helms and to keep open lines of communication with his staff. So
it probably came as no surprise to Sir Christopher, although it
clearly rocked No 10, when Helms delivered a public warning that
British participation in the anti-Nato European army would be
taken by America as a sign that the French had at last found in
Britain the ally they needed to begin the process of reducing
American influence in Europe.
Blair has already been told clearly that if his new European army
� for that is what it is, no matter what the Prime Minister calls
it � intends to rely on US Intelligence, he had better think
again. In fact, if he has any intention of sharing intelligence
with the French, who American intelligence officers believe
passed such information on to Milosevic during the Kosovo
intervention, I am assured by intelligence types in Washington
that Britain will find itself out of the loop for the first time
since the Second World War.
To add to Blair�s woes, Bush has nominated Donald Rumsfeld to be
his Secretary of Defence, specifically rejecting his old friend
Tom Ridge, the Pennsylvania Governor, because of the latter�s
lack of enthusiasm for the national missile defence system (NMD)
that Bush has promised to deploy at the earliest feasible date.
Rumsfeld is a long-time proponent of a missile shield to protect
America and any who would shelter from missile attacks from
�rogue Governments� such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq, or from a
newly hostile Russia.
To put that shield in place, America will need to upgrade radar
equipment at RAF Fylingdales in North Yorkshire. That means Blair
will have to say �yes� or �no� � �maybe� or �later� won�t do. The
French, of course, are violently opposed to the plan, as are many
other European nations which Blair has been so assiduously
courting, some of which are eager to curry favour and contracts
with the likes of President Saddam Hussein and Iran�s ayatollahs.
Bush aims to make Blair choose, and if the Prime Minister thinks
he can fob off the allegedly not-so-bright new President and his
formidable team of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and
Condoleezza Rice, with talk of a bridge between America and
Europe, he had better think again. America wants an ally, not a
bridge.
There is worse. Gordon Brown�s chief economic adviser, Ed Balls,
and Larry Lindsey, who was in charge of economic policy for
George Bush Sr, are old buddies, having been at Harvard together.
Recently Lindsey, a colleague of mine at a Washington think-tank,
upset Balls by making it clear that the Bush team regards the EU
as protectionist. The EU was regarded as not worth fussing with
over trade issues because of its refusal to comply with the World
Trade Organisation and drop the banana-import scheme that
discriminates against US companies, its barriers to the
importation of American beef on spurious health grounds, and its
import restrictions on American TV programmes, films and other
audiovisual products. Equally important, Robert Zoellick, with
whom I have served on a corporate advisory board and who will
play an important part in formulating the Bush team�s trade
policy, is unhappy with the EU�s refusal to include services
among the products covered by WTO rules.
So there is growing support among trade experts with access to
the Bush camp for a move to ignore Britain, and to push instead
for bilateral deals with Latin America and with Pacific area
countries. After all, Britain has ceded authority over trade
matters to the EU, and from America�s point of view that means
dealing with the French whose enthusiasm for free trade, to put
it mildly, leaves something to be desired. In the Clinton era,
Blair could make a phone call and wheedle favours such as an
exemption for the British cashmere products from America�s
trade-retaliation hit list. Those days are gone: Bush�s team is
well aware of new Labour�s preference for Gore, and, more
importantly, of the Prime Minister�s continuing effort to prove
that he is a good European.
Another item on the list of Britain�s woes is the nomination of
Paul O�Neill to be Secretary of the Treasury. O�Neill, coming as
he does from the industrial sector, is a long-time advocate of a
weaker dollar. If he prevails, Britain will find it more
difficult to sell its wares in America. He is also very sceptical
about the global warming scare, and is likely to be a voice in
the Administration that holds out against Europe�s refusal to
allow trading of pollution permits that would efficiently cut the
cost of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. Britain is going to
have to choose between the anti-market, anti-permit-trading
position of its European friends, or the pro-market position of
the Bush Administration.
Finally, there is the contradiction at the heart of the Blair and
Bush approaches to foreign policy. The Prime Minister, in his
famous speech in Chicago, argued that the democracies have an
obligation to intervene wherever in the world bad things are
happening. Clinton agrees. But the Clintons are now packing their
things to move to their new house in Washington, and the Bushes
are preparing to move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And George
W. Bush has one test for intervention: is a vital American
interest involved? To which Colin Powell adds, can we accomplish
the mission quickly, and get out? No hanging around for �nation
building�, and no use of combat troops for humanitarian chores.
If Blair is looking for an ally to support his not-unworthy
vision of the role of democracies, he should start looking
elsewhere. And stop thinking that he can count on American
resources to realise his benign vision, while reducing the combat
readiness of his own forces.
Some years ago, the then British Ambassador to the US, Robin
Renwick, quoted a Foreign Office paper on relations between your
country and mine: �If we go about our business in the right way,
we can help steer this great unwieldy barge, the United States of
America, into the right harbour.� As any streetwise American
would tell Blair now: �Fuggedaboutit.� We have an able new
captain on the bridge of our ship of state, an experienced crew,
an aversion to �Third Way� bilge, and a clear sense of the
direction in which we want to travel in the world. We hope the
British people will join us. But right now, we fear that they, or
at least their Prime Minister, would rather sail under the flag
of those not exactly friendly to us. We mourn our loss, as you
should yours.
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
