To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Clare Short announces her decision
Arthur: As usual, Keith Hudson is a very sagacious observer, and, on many aspects of this issue, the differences between us are not significant. I'd like to thank him for enlightening me about the differences between the Tory caucus revolt that ousted Thatcher in the early 1990s (actually, she won a majority of the caucus vote, but her advisers convinced her that she and her party would be in a bloody mess if she used procedural means to try to hang on). My general point is that Blair would be significantly crippled by "destooling" him, as one of his backbenchers said in a BBC interview that I heard this morning; but it might take some time to oust him after he faced the further results of a caucus rebellion. By the way, I want to correct something that Hudson inferred from what I had written. I, too, assume that this would only come to a head if Blair actually joins in to an attack on Iraq without UN sanction. Otherwise, the residue of this adventure might be that Blair is less credible across the range of issues, and that there are problems within the Labour Party that would have to be resolved before they face the electorate again, but Blair might very well continue to survive as PM till the next election. (By the way, what would be the result if he defies a significant part of his caucus, and joins with Tory suppporters to sustain a decision on Iraq? A few years ago I read Kingsley Martin's older biography of Harold Laski, and got more insight into the crisis in 1931, when the Labour cabinet split on unemployment benefits and the Prime Minister broke with his party to form a National Government with Baldwin's Conservatives. This was seen by Laski, and a majority of the caucus, as a "great betrayal." A similar development, with more fatal consequences, occurred over the same issue in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The Center Party (a Catholic party), which had been in coalition with the liberals and some Social Democrats, to provide a stable government in the mid-1920s, split the coalition when issues of the social safety net arose. By 1931, Chancellor Bruning (a left-wing Center Party politician, who had started in the Catholic trade union movement) was dependent on the right-wing of his party (including von Papen, who had earlier been ousted from the caucus, but re-admitted) and the nationalists; eventually, von Papen took over, was ousted by a political coup, tried to come back again and brought in Hitler as a coalition partner.) Last point. I don't think I indicated that I had any illusions about political leaders being idealists. On a plain reading of what I wrote earlier, I thought that I clearly indicated that normally, for quite self-serving reasons, they act to save their own skins, and don't persist in kamikaze tactics (unless they are fanatics). Thus, I concluded that there would have to be something worse that Blair was trying to avoid if he persisted in this kind of self-defeating situation. In general, one doesn't take these risks of loss of power or position simply for the sake of a hypothetical gain (a slice of Iraqi oil, as tempting as that might be) or the expectation of a golden parachute when one loses office (that is a consideration, but it is expected, from one quarter or another, if you lose power; in the meantime, exercising power is preferable, in most circumstances). Regards, (You can post this, if you like, with the usual safeguards for my anonymity). UPS would be a satisfactory anonyme < as long as nobody expects me to go around, delivering parcels.) I feel that the situation has changed greatly and that unless there is a suitable out, Blair could be either ousted or hamstrung, and the U.S. opposition against Bush could mount significantly (particularly if there are problems on the way to Baghdad, one could begin to see some stirrings of the "let's impeach the President" concept (a 5% chance right now, but who knows what could happen). I don't have any great liking for Bush. But I don't want to see a major domestic political war in the U.S., nor do I want Saddam and his supporters to realize how effective their brand of psychological warfare can be in the age of the "wired world" and to be able to claim victory. I think the Bush approach could have been successful if they hadn't farted around with international approval to start with, and moved as quickly as possible on the basis of the right of self-defense. What they did, in an age of instantaneous communication, is to give their opponents a huge amount of time to mobilize against them. Is this the way that wars will increasingly be fought, i.e., international mobilization of opposing governments and populations? On 3/11/03 12:10 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hudson replies. Note you are referred to as UPS Unknown political > scientist. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:35 AM > To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Futurework] Clare Short announces her decision > > > At 11:18 10/03/03 -0500, you posted some comments from your "maybe not so > retired" political scientist colleague as a conseqence of my posting > concerning Clare Short. > > Here are some further comments of mine. (I hope your colleague will not > mind his temporary acroym: UPS = unknown political scientist!): > > (UPS) > <<<< > Right now, though the possibility of war is being treated although it is > over 90 per cent certain, I am inclined to think, if I had to put a number > on it, that it is somewhere between a 67% to a 75% proposition -- very > likely, but not near certain (the impression of certainty has to be > maintained if this is a psychological warfare exercise aimed at weakening > Iraq, and, possibly, stimulating internal opposition that will make it > easier to achieve regime change). >>>>> > > I'd put the odds at about the same. However, I can't believe this could be > a psychological exercise. It's an enormously expensive way of applying > pressure, and if Bush doesn't invade (that is, if he succeeds in his > objectives) the world would still interpret a withdrawal as chickening out. > And, surely, the Army would feel furious in being treated in this way. > > However, as another (Middle East) colleague of Arthur has agreed with me, I > believe that, in all likelihood, secret negotiations have been going on > (and maybe on and off!) for a long time between American oil corporations > and the Iraqi regime. And very likely still are. The idea that America is > against Saddam because he has weapons of mass destruction that are any > danger to America, or that he could give succour to Al Queda terrorists > (there is mutual detestation between Osama and Saddam) is laughable. The > possibility that America might lose dependable oil supplies from Saudi > Arabia is now very real, considering the worsening social and economic > situation there. Thus Iraqi oil supplies will be absolutely imperative as a > back-up. When the Saudis postponed negotations with American oil > corporations over some new, very large oil and gas development contracts > some two years ago, and when Saddam did likewise, confining his > negotiations only to the French, Russians and the Chinese, the writing was > clearly on the wall. No question: long term American economic growth was in > danger. And this still applies. > > There will always be plenty of fossil fuel energy resources, at least for > several hundred years. But the important point is the cost. The cost of oil > and, even more so, gas, from the Middle East, is *incredibly* cheap > compared with other fossil fuel resources. We already know that the > slightest rises in oil and gas prices cause economic stress -- there's a > direct coupling between oil prices and unemployment. The American (and > other developed countries') economy crucially depends on the present level > of oil and gas prices. > > (UPS) > <<<< > It seems to me that there may be a declining probability, depending on what > happens in Britain; Blair is essentially under siege from his own > supporters, and it is reaching into the cabinet. As happened with Maggie > Thatcher about a dozen years ago, a supposedly untouchable leader can be > quickly ousted if there is a situation that favors a coup in her cabinet or > caucus. So Blair's position is the weaker link. > > The pressure on Blair has been mounting for weeks. But, for the first > time, it has somebody with a reputation, and a potential alternative PM, > who is joining it (though I doubt that if Blair falls Short will replace > him -- I think that the Blair forces and those of his opportunistic rival, > the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, will unite to keep her out > and put Brown in. Labour would probably go into the next election > substantially weakened, because of the simmering resentment at such a > catastrophe. >>>>> > > Gordon Brown is the only possible rival at the moment and, according to > rumour, the position is 'promised' to him by Blair. But as to Blair > himself, his position is far stronger than Thatcher's ever was. There's a > very involved, protracted procedure to replace a Labour Party leader. > Although some MPs have made the first moves, this is really only a symbolic > step. Blair is virtually impregnable. > > In practice the only way he can be got rid of is if (a) he goes ahead in > supporting an American invasion without UN authority -- against about 200 > of his own Labour MPs and relying Tory support; *and* (b) the invasion goes > horribly wrong -- a particularly gruesome bombing of women and children in > Baghdad, for example. It is the latter possibility which must be keeping > Blair awake at night. > > (UPS) > <<<< > Oddly, this makes me believe even more strongly that there is probably > significant evidence, that cannot be revealed, that convinces Blair and > Bush that Iraq must be taken on, and Saddam removed, at any cost. >>>>> > > I don't think for one minute that there is any significant evidence. > However, I think that if oil is the reason then there may be large pickings > for Blair when he retires from politics. Major was made a director of the > Carlyle Group by Bush Senior when he retired from politics. Sorry to sound > so cynical, but I think that this is very possibly the real reason. In his > six years of office Blair and those close to him have already been tainted > with allegations of corruption -- with Richard Murdoch, the Hinduji > Brothers, Bernie Ecclestone and several more lesser types who have gained > lucrative government contracts. There cannot be this much smoke without a > fire. > > (UPS) > <<<< > The reason that I take this position is not sheer perversity. First, Blair > and Bush come at policy from essentially different positions, point of > view, and perceptions of basic interests. Blair is a very cagey > politician, and not a lightweight in any sense. The notion that he has > simply loyally followed along as a tame poodle for Bush, and has risked as > much as he has just to get some pats of approval (or somewhat more material > rewards for his country) doesn't stand up to my reading of political > behavior. I have rarely met, or observed, a capable politician who > willingly will commit to a likely kamikaze dive, unless there is something > that is pushing him in such a way that taking such risks seems to be less > risky than facing some other possibility. And I think that Blair is facing > danger that any self-serving, capable, politician would have sought either > to avoid or to get out of long before this time. >>>>> > > Perhaps I am longer in the tooth than UPS. I have also been deeply involved > in politics at national and regional level and I know what it is like to be > at the receiving end of political nastiness. It cost me a very great deal > in terms of stress and a career. So I am a great deal more sceptical than > usual about politicians. I think most (or perhaps about half) are sincere; > but the other half are eminently corruptible. Sometimes, one doesn't know > which is which! > > (UPS) > <<<< > Second question: what happens if the British-U.S. resolution is withdrawn, > or is defeated (either failing a majority in the Security Council or > getting a majority, but being vetoed by the vote of one of the permanent > members. I think I indicated this, as suggested to me by somebody with > whom I had a conversation. To recap: the Americans might put forward a > resolution asking for a vote, up or down, on whether Iraq had fully > complied with the previous UN resolution. It is harder, in such a vote, to > implement a veto, and they might get a majority to vote that Iraq had not > complied fully, since some Council members could rationalize it to > themselves as a vote without explicit consequences. But the U.S. could > take this and use it as a rationalization that they got the vote that they > were denied because of the formalities of the veto process, etc... >>>>> > > The Americans must be realising by now that they are not going to get a Yes > vote for their new resolution -- unless Blair persuades them to extend the > compliance/inspection period for a great deal longer -- along the French > lines. I really wouldn't like to guess what would happen. > > (UPS) > <<<< > The most recent U.S. polling data suggests that after his press conference > last week, Bush regained some of the support in American opinion that had > been slipping, but I don't recall the exact numbers. >>>>> > > Mass political sentiment can turn very quickly. When American economic > figures turn down lower (as I strongly believe they will) then the American > middle class (that is, the opinion holders and voters) could turn against > Bush very strongly for getting his priorities wrong. What were previously > accepted as strong arguments by Bush for invasion of Iraq will be quickly > re-interpreted as fallacious. The voting public will want Bush to come out > with economic remedies. And then, too, several Al Qeada personnel close to > Osama bin Laden are now being caught. Also, by adding a little dash of > fatalism into one's psyche it's possible to live quite calmly in a > terrorist-prone society. The Brits, and even more so the people of Northern > Ireland, have been doing so for years. (And, in Northern Ireland, during > the worst of the troubles, the psychiatric hospital admission rates are > much less than in "normal" times. Homo sapiens and predecessors evolved for > millions of years in condititions of high stress. It's much more tolerable > than many imagine.) > > (UPS) > <<<< > Last point: I think that, aside from the question of what happens in the > Middle East, the international system, and the UN, the important thing to > watch are shifts in U.S. political and economic sentiment. This may be a > catalyst, whichever way things develop, to the domestic ethos and political > agenda of the U.S. for the coming decade (or even more fundamental). > Interestingly, another poll released last week, suggests that, among > important issues, the war/peace issue only ranks third in the entire > population sample that was surveyed. First is the economy; second is > health care. In terms of the war/peace issues, Iraq is still only > significant if embedded in the overall "war on terrorism." >>>>> > > Ah! I hadn't read this when I wrote my previous comment. Yes, indeed. > > (UPS) > <<<< > The possibility, if Bush (contrary to expectation, which I share) decides > to pull back from the brink, what will he do to rationalize this. First, > he will claim that the mobilization in the Gulf area produced results, and > that the UN now has to ensure (with participation by all the powers) that > the pressure of "armed diplomacy" is kept up on Iraq and against Saddam > Hussein. Secondly, if he indeed has made further captures or other gains > against Al Qaeda, there will be more attention on these successes and less > on Iraq. > > Thirdly, there may be efforts (partially dissociated from "official" White > House sources) to show the American people that they can live without their > "false allies," and to retaliate in a number of smaller ways against those > that have thwarted the Americans in what will continue to be presented as a > legitimate right to engage in pre-emptive self-defense. If possible, more > evidence will be leaked about the dangers that were seen, and the > activities (linked to terrorism) in which Iraq may have been involved. > This will set the stage for a confrontation in which lines are even more > sharply drawn between an ideologized left and right wings in early 21st > century America, and a possible further shift in the internal > characteristics of the American system to be more in accord with a siege > mentality or a "garrison state." >>>>> > > It can easily be done. People are so gullible! During WWII, the most > English people thought that "Uncle" Joe Stalin was a wonderful ally. That's > what they were told. That's what they read in their newspapers. A couple of > years after the war he was considered an enemy. Forty years ago Archbishop > Makarios was talked of as the shield behind which Cyriot terrorists blew up > British soldiers. He was hated and reviled throughout England. Within six > months of Cyprus gaining independence, Archbiship Makarios was taking tea > with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. > > I hope I haven't sounded like an oil-conspiracist but, as an industrial > chemist originally many years ago, I know of the importance of energy as > the main driving force for almost everything that takes place. It's an > absolutely essential component of all civilisation -- and, the more of it > per head ,the higher the standard of living. Compared with almost any other > single economic factor, the continued supply of cheap imported is vital to > america's continued prosperity. > > Keith Hudson > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------ > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
