Blair in public split with Bush
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1247759,00.html Interesting how this is done. The Attorney General, a government minister, who is meant to give impartial legal advice (which is then kept secret - eg whether it is lawful to invade Iraq) has delivered a speech in a foreign capital - Paris - saying as a matter of pure jurisprudence that it is difficult to accept the system of military tribunals at Guantanamo. Typically the Blair administration has negotiated the repatriation of 5 British detainees from Guantanamo Bay (at least one of whom gave evidence of sexual humiliation and psychological torture going on there). There are only four remaining. And this news story is presented in such a way as to make highly ambiguous the degree of disagreement between Bush and Blair, and to treat is as an ongoing part of the business of diplomatic relations. But the manner of handling, allows others to speculate that the alliance is not much of an alliance, and for Blair to distance himself from Bush a little, while putting pressure for Bush to confront the Pentagon and release the remaining 4 in a gesture that will show he has not been a poodle. And this at a time when Bush is on the retreat internationally and in Iraq, whereas Blair may just be forgiven in the UK for his realpolitik that Britain had to decide whether to ally with the USA over a matter of great importance to that administration. Bush does not have that excuse, and further adverse events in Iraq may hurt Bush more than Blair. Which of course might require a sympathetic observation or two from the Brits, but could work out to be rather favourable to Britain's role in the world - the peace maker, the peace keeper, but committed to the rule of law, and with a tolerably efficient body of armed men at the disposal of a multi-lateralist model of emerging Empire. Meanwhile of course it is just a matter of time before the Brits get their remaining 4 citizens back from Guantanamo Bay, as Powell's officials have probably already privately indicated to them. When these citizens arrive in the UK there will be further news stories, which the Brits will handle with superb responsibility, but will further distance Blair if not from Bush, from Rumsfeld, and the detainees will probably be released. Thereby raising further questions in the international community about whether the USA's military adventures are in conformity with any concept of international law or not. The well judged balancing act of Perdious Albion continues to unfold, rather professionally. And as a bye-product 4 detainees may get released. If you attempt to be a modern marxist, watch news management to see how the material balance of forces is moulded in the ideological superstructure. Chris Burford London
Re: Blair in public split with Bush
What was the response to the other released Gitmo Brits having been accused falsely? On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 07:23:08AM +0100, Chris Burford wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1247759,00.html Interesting how this is done. The Attorney General, a government minister, who is meant to give impartial legal advice (which is then kept secret - eg whether it is lawful to invade Iraq) has delivered a speech in a foreign capital - Paris - saying as a matter of pure jurisprudence that it is difficult to accept the system of military tribunals at Guantanamo. Typically the Blair administration has negotiated the repatriation of 5 British detainees from Guantanamo Bay (at least one of whom gave evidence of sexual humiliation and psychological torture going on there). There are only four remaining. And this news story is presented in such a way as to make highly ambiguous the degree of disagreement between Bush and Blair, and to treat is as an ongoing part of the business of diplomatic relations. But the manner of handling, allows others to speculate that the alliance is not much of an alliance, and for Blair to distance himself from Bush a little, while putting pressure for Bush to confront the Pentagon and release the remaining 4 in a gesture that will show he has not been a poodle. And this at a time when Bush is on the retreat internationally and in Iraq, whereas Blair may just be forgiven in the UK for his realpolitik that Britain had to decide whether to ally with the USA over a matter of great importance to that administration. Bush does not have that excuse, and further adverse events in Iraq may hurt Bush more than Blair. Which of course might require a sympathetic observation or two from the Brits, but could work out to be rather favourable to Britain's role in the world - the peace maker, the peace keeper, but committed to the rule of law, and with a tolerably efficient body of armed men at the disposal of a multi-lateralist model of emerging Empire. Meanwhile of course it is just a matter of time before the Brits get their remaining 4 citizens back from Guantanamo Bay, as Powell's officials have probably already privately indicated to them. When these citizens arrive in the UK there will be further news stories, which the Brits will handle with superb responsibility, but will further distance Blair if not from Bush, from Rumsfeld, and the detainees will probably be released. Thereby raising further questions in the international community about whether the USA's military adventures are in conformity with any concept of international law or not. The well judged balancing act of Perdious Albion continues to unfold, rather professionally. And as a bye-product 4 detainees may get released. If you attempt to be a modern marxist, watch news management to see how the material balance of forces is moulded in the ideological superstructure. Chris Burford London -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Blair in public split with Bush
In answer to Michael's question [below] my impression is that it has all been handled very discretely by the British government, which did nothing to fan the controversy when the previously released detainees gave a number of interviews. But the Guardian article which I quoted, refers to Blair's split with Bush on this question emerging in the course of a legal response to an application by lawyers on behalf of some of those Brits who are still detained, that the British government must appeal for their release. Blair has now done this. It is typical of New Labour to handle all these issues as purely technical ones of social and economic engineering, and I cannot prove that Blair is using this issue to distance himself slightly from Bush. I think his action is multiply determined as so many things are, but I think you can guess the background briefings behind the scenes in which government spokepersons spread the word in studied undertones, that, of course, the British government's position is not identical to that of the US administration. As for the previously released Brits I am not aware they have found a legal opening to sue. The British government probably meets with them, sounds very willing to help if only a way can be found, but unfortunately cannot see a way to help in this murky legal situation... However, of course, the British government is already to signatory to the International Criminal Court, does uphold the principle of the rule of international law, [while wishing to rewrite it if you are Tony Blair] and things are moving in more accountable direction. etc etc Perhaps another Brit subscriber knows more or could even get their MP to forward a well-phrased question to the Home Secretary, which is the only way to ensure a reply. Chris Burford London - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Blair in public split with Bush What was the response to the other released Gitmo Brits having been accused falsely?
