| Submit your comments on this article | |||||||
| Britain | |||||||
| Interview with Tony Blair’s foreign policy guru | |||||||
| 2003-10-25 | |||||||
| A glimpse into the mindset of a tranzi mastermind. Opinion, not news, but important as this man has Blair and the EU’s ear. Slightly EFL. If there is one man who can explain why Tony Blair went to war in Iraq, sent troops to Afghanistan and wants to join the euro, it is a tall, cultured man in Brussels called Robert Cooper. He is the foreign policy guru who, on secondment to No 10 in the years before the September 11 attacks, influenced much of the Prime Minister’s thinking on international affairs. It was also Mr Cooper who, five years ago, persuaded Mr Blair to push for a European military capability. Then, presciently, in the months before the World Trade Center attack, he started badgering the Prime Minister to think seriously about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. When the war on terrorism began, he was made Britain’s special representative on Afghanistan. Later, with military action against Iraq looming, he argued for a new form of imperialism, based not on territory but on western values such as human rights, democracy and Coca-Cola. Now he has been posted to Brussels as right-hand man to Javier Solana, Europe’s foreign and security policy supremo. But he retains close links with Downing Street, where his ideas are held in great respect. In Whitehall and beyond, he is valued for his independence of mind. Unusually for a civil servant, he has a licence to print as well as to think: next week he is publishing a book, The Breaking of Nations, that sets out his ideas. Some are horrified by his influence on Mr Blair; Tam Dalyell, the Left-wing Labour MP, once described him as a maniac. But the Prime Minister greatly values his ability to "think out of the box". "I am an idealist," he says, as he stride towards a Brussels cafe. "I still have my Sixties instincts. I do not understand why people would want to fight each other - or sometimes why they would not." Unusually, I’m with Tam - he’s a fool or a maniac. Snip - some twaddle about "disaffected people in the world", Europe’s 9-11 being inevitable, and how Cooper "was astute enough to see the danger that the power vacuum in Afghanistan posed to the wider world." (Well, he certainly earned his Xmas bonus with that revelation.) "You stop [a European 9-11] by spreading civilisation, by creating good government. We have to try to put ourselves into the situation where there has been another major terrorist incident - using biological weapons in a European city, for example. Imagine what you might do, then do it in advance." Like nuke Tehran? I think he means: invade Iraq. Although he rejects the analysis that there is a "clash of civilisations" between Christianity and Islam, he thinks the West has still not sufficiently understood the new threat. "In the Cold War, we were dealing with a civilisation which was very similar to ours. The people we are dealing with now are much more foreign. Maybe we need more anthropologists." Patronising, evasive and advocating an ludicrously inappropriate waste of taxpayers’ money: you’d never guess this was a flower-powered civil servant. The Cooper theory is that there are three types of country: pre-modern, defined by chaos and lack of state control, such as pre-war Afghanistan; the modern nation state within clear boundaries, such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; and post-modern, in which the nation state is collapsing into a bigger order - the European Union for example. The "Cooper theory" blends the blatantly obvious with the fantastic. The "collapse of nation states into a bigger order" has happened before, many times. Never worked satisfactorily where people were anything like as diverse as those of the EU. The post-modern world, which prefers diplomacy to war, must realise that pre-modern countries are dangerous not because they are strong but because they are so weak that they can become ciphers for people such as Osama bin Laden. It must also understand that the modern and pre-modern worlds operate in different ways. "You cannot treat people like Saddam Hussein the way you treat your neighbours," Mr Cooper says. "If we have a problem with France and Germany, we negotiate. But there are leaders you cannot negotiate with." Riiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhht. So let me get this straight - Bush and Chirac must be bosom buddies communicating on the same wavelength, whereas Chirac and Saddam must have regarded each other as coming from Venus and Mars, respectively. No negotiating possible there, then.
Well he gets 1 point for Basic Rationalizing Abilities. As an aside, Mr Cooper has an interesting theory that it is particularly difficult for oil-rich countries to become democracies. "If you have a state that does not have to raise taxes because the money flows out of the ground, it can survive without democracy." Because such countries are ruled by thug law, and always have been. I’m sorry, is there something profound to this? What about Venezuela?
It was the realisation that the chaos of the pre-modern world could so easily destroy the order of the post-modern one that prompted Mr Cooper to develop his ideas about a new imperialism. "Decolonisation left the world with a lot of weak states," he says. "For a while they lived on the capital that had been left behind then survived because the Cold War gave the superpowers a reason to prop them up. But now we have seen states collapse and in Afghanistan we saw how dangerous that can be. If you want to avoid havens for terrorists, you have to bring these countries back under control." Wow, imperialism. Isn’t only what bad Yankees do? Although he appears to share some of the American neo-conservative views, he rejects the idea that there is an "axis of evil" that must be neutralised one country at a time. Iran and North Korea should be dealt with in different ways, he says. Saying things like this, is really impressive in Brussels, apparently.
The forriners are too expensive to enslave nowadays, do you mean?! WTF is all this imperialism stuff?! Mr Cooper is concerned by America’s global dominance. "I would be more comfortable in a world where power was less concentrated," he says. And this is why...he wants the collapse of nation states and a pan-continental European government. Mad.
Blair holds European transnationalist/imperialist views, but respects the power of American authority, and the ability to change things for the better. Something Europe can’t. Trouble is, he doesn’t realise that this is not because America wants to change the world, only that American influence is a byproduct of her economic and political success. Europe, obssessed with ever increasing government and deliberate socialistic paternalism will never equal America.
He’s one of us or one of them. Either/or. Fundamentally different. You cannot be a good European and pro-American. European federalism is all about opposition to the United States. That can’t be stated often enough.
...the EU is based on multi-national negotiations and the rule of law. Bureaucracy, bureaucracy, government interference in the minutiae of daily life, and bureaucracy: there’s the EU. And the US - doesn’t respect the rule of law?
Because Europe has treated the world so well in the past. Can’t possibly let the world fall victim to the US — that would be terribly neglectful. That is why he supports the idea of a European defence force as a support, rather than a rival, to Nato. The Americans are far from happy about the idea. Because it’s not intended to support NATO. It’s intended to do the exact opposite. Mr Cooper, foreign policy guru first in Britain and now in Europe, says with candour: "Influencing foreigners is really difficult." Depends on how you do it, and whether those people want to hear lectures from an idealistic transnationalistic socialist, or someone else... The Telegraph have a leader piece criticising Cooper in the same paper today. Here’s an excerpt: "Like Mr Blair, he makes a fetish of the UN and of treaties, whether on nuclear proliferation, landmines or global warming. The two men see themselves as part of an internationalist tradition that, at its best, is a noble one. Yet it brings problems of its own. Without the nation-state, it is hard to see how governments and other organisations can be properly accountable. A world where well-meaning technocrats made the rules - whether through the UN, the EU, the International Court or whatever - would leave little space for democracy." It’s charitable to refer to "well-meaning technocrats". History’s full of "well-meaning" authoritarians. Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Kim Jong-Il, Mao, Mohammed... and their "well-meaning", usually transnationalist, philosphies. It’s amazing how many people learn squat from history, and also from the stark realities of the world around them. Politics as religion. | |||||||
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #13 NotMikeMoore> "Time to buy a clue Aris most people in America (for now) are Euro background--so the racism charge is laughable--" How naive of you. If you go back enough all humans are of African background but that hasn't stopped people from being racist against modern-day Africans, has it now? And most Bosnian Muslims were of Serb ethnic origin, but that didn't stop the Christian Serbs from massacring them just because. And Arabs and Israeli are both Semites, so no Arab could *ever* have racist hatred against the Jews. Perhaps American enjoy making all those nitpicky distinctions between bigotries. We here, we call them all "racism", as they are all the exact same thing. "but what about Chirac telling eastern Europe to STFU? " Once again, what about it? I've condemned him already, what else do you want? Torch an effigy of him? "The old Europe/new Europe comment was not stupid, it was insightful." Oh, yes, how very insightful. If he'd included UK, Spain and Italy in the "old Europe", and countries like Belgium in the "new", it might have even been just a tiny bit accurate, though not very useful for propaganda purposes towards the illiterate historically and geographically. "it's 1930s-40s again, staring Europe in the face, and Europe can't see it." Oh yeah, I've heard that before. Saddam was a new Hitler and not attacking him would have meant the sure destruction of Western Civilisation. And hundreds of tons of WMDs are gonna be discovered any day now. Europeans just couldn't see these indisputable facts (the way that they couldn't see the connections between Saddam and 9/11) just because we were too blind to see them. Whatever. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-26 1:40:52 AM |
| #12 --Or is it general racism of the "Chirac is European, Chirac is bad, therefore all Europeans are bad" variety?-- How about Chiraq is phrench, cultural exception, you know? The "old Europe/new Europe" comment was not stupid, it was insightful. Maybe you're too close to it and can't see it???? I also wouldn't call it general racism against Europe. We Americans may be ignorant on history over the millenia, but jeezus, it's 1930s-40s again, staring Europe in the face, and Europe can't see it. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-25 11:59:30 PM |
| #11 general racism against Europe--? Time to buy a clue Aris most people in America (for now) are Euro background--so the racism charge is laughable--but what about Chirac telling eastern Europe to STFU? If you truly don't see a mutual interest between Europe and the US in this battle--as an American liberal I'm soooo done with you people! It's that stupid Euro centric view of people like you who push Americans into the dumbass Republican point of view--whatever happened to pragmatism? LOL |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2003-10-25 11:28:47 PM |
| #10 NotMikeMoore> And haven't I repeatedly condemned Chirac's attitude? Haven't I called him despicable and an idiot and several other things? So unless you disagree with me and you approve of the guy, what in the fucking hell is your point? Or is it general racism of the "Chirac is European, Chirac is bad, therefore all Europeans are bad" variety? "Fuck Europe" I'm sure that all those European nations (what were they, 20 different nations or so? Half the continent openly supporting you, and even countries that opposed you like Germany and Greece still allowing you to use their bases?) that supported you in the War of the Iraq will be happy to see this *American* lack of gratitude -- the same lack of gratitude that we have seen towards Europe in their support at Afghanistan. The same lack of gratitude that I predicted long ago. Because American ignoramuses always choose to remember the things that they want to remember; and they consistently forget all the rest. "Fuck Europe", eh? Then why don't you tell all European troops to abandon both Afghanistan and Iraq? I'm sure you can do it alone, fighting wars on three and four fronts with no assistance whatsoever. Brian> Yeah, we are all quaking in our boots for the fear that Berlin may get nukes. *rolls eyes* Still living 60 years in the past aren't you? Or is it 80? And I can't claim to know nearly as much about WW1 as others of you here do, but I still don't see how Serb "imperialism" is to blame for a neighbouring country invading them because of an assasination commited by a lone nationalist. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-25 11:14:28 PM |
| #9 Uh Aris--didn't Chirac basically tell the Eastern European wannabees to STFU? I'm sure being in Greece you're for a strong Europe to counter-balance American power--only because small politically insignificant countries in Europe wish/hope for the worst for the US--and I say this as a liberal Democrat--we're tired of your European perfidy and lack of gratitude--Fuck Europe |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2003-10-25 10:56:32 PM |
| #8 Actually it was Serbian imperialism and Austrian reactionary behaviour. Pity that Wilhem II didn't update the Russo-German Reinsurance Treaty negotiated under Bismarck, eh, Aris? You could have the same effect as if Germany develops the bomb...European domination by Berlin. |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-10-25 8:34:26 PM |
| #7 "The suspicion (well founded, IIRC) was that the Serbian government was involved. " And since when was it okay to invade nations based only on suspicions? "Today, it's the European federalists who advocate a division across the Atlantic, and they do it for no good reason. " No, it seems to me that it's American fanatics who advocate this division, and more divisions inside the continent as well. Don't you remember Rumsfeld's "Old Europe vs. New Europe"? Even Chirac at his worst hasn't said anything so breathtakingly stupid. European federalists want unity inside the continent. And yes they want this continent to be a prosperous and powerful one. *Because* we know how horrible the alternative is. But this is interpreted as a "division across the Atlantic" only by those who consider every single thing only by how it affects America. Only by those who believe that every single political movement is either an ideological ally or an ideological enemy of America. Don't you remember the Estonian referendum and how it was the threat of Russia that was mentioned when debating entry into the EU? And I assure you that in Greek and Cypriot minds it's the threat of Turkey, not of America, that's in people's mind when an EU with defense capabilities is considered a good thing to have. But people who think that America is the one and only point of interest in the globe, will keep on thinking this "pole" as a pole directed against America. And idiots like Chirac will keep on encouraging that logic with their rhetoric. And it couldn't be more misguided. "There isn't a need for a showdown between America and 'Europe', and to encourage one is to risk repeating the mistakes of the past." And who is encouraging it if not those who consider a powerful EU as a defacto enemy of America? Why do you keep on translating "we want to be as powerful as you" into "we want to be your enemy"? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-25 8:24:47 PM |
| #6 Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist, in Bosnia. The suspicion (well founded, IIRC) was that the Serbian government was involved. The point I am trying to make is that WWI resulted from a scenario which appeared stable - alliances which seemed capable of mutual destruction to an impartial observer (though of course each side was confident of its own assured success should war happen - I think that in 1914 every nation told itself that "it'll be over by Christmas") and therefore unlikely to declare war on one another. However, when the butterfly flapped its wings that June day in 1914, that bipolar world which seemed to consist of nothing more than two mirror images collections of powers propping against one another, began its slide down a slippery slope ending in military confrontation on all fronts and war of unimagined cruelty and destruction. There was nothing at all fundametally different about the attitudes or ambitions of the Triple Alliance and her opponents in the German/Austro-Hungarian axis. They had constructed a bipolar world out of practical necessity arising from their aggressive and imperialistic behaviour. Today, it's the European federalists who advocate a division across the Atlantic, and they do it for no good reason. There isn't a need for a showdown between America and 'Europe', and to encourage one is to risk repeating the mistakes of the past. Maybe there won't be military confrontation between the US and Europe, but confrontation of one sort or another is guaranteed if Europe is steered in the direction advocated by "Old Europe". |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-10-25 7:33:04 PM |
| #5 Bulldog> I'd say that a single anarchist managed to trigger WWI, only because there already existed countries there eager to invade their neighbours at the slightest provocation... Austria invaded Serbia and for what? The actions of a lone gunman, with no proof that the Serbian government itself was behind it? If it wasn't for this Austro-German imperialism, WWI wouldn't have happened. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-25 5:34:51 PM |
| #4 We used to have a world in which power was less concentrated. Competition between nation states is what gave rise to Holy Alliances and Axes. We fought two world wars and a cold war because power was less concentrated. I'd disagree with the presumption that a lack of concentration of power caused two world wars. I would argue that it was precisely 'concentration of power' that transformed the First World War from a regular Balkan bust-up to continent-wide slaughter. The concentration of power that was manifested to unprecedented proportions in the form of the pre-war alliances (in the form of mutual defence agreements) magnified the conflict to an unprecedented scale - it did precisely the opposite of halting conflict, it powered-up the conflict. I thought that we had fought two world wars and a cold war because there existed tyrannical countries that wanted to bring the whole world under their control? Do your homework, Aris. A single anarchist managed to trigger WWI because the European world had set itself up in two evenly balanced opposing camps. Few people saw the conflict coming. Happened 90 years ago. One hundred years ago the alliances were coalescing. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-10-25 1:29:12 PM |
| #3 The UN is a collection of failed states and despots trying to leech the wealth from the civilized world while maintaining the slavery of their own people. That Europe views the UN as symbolic of the "rule of law" is a sad comment on what Europe REALLY thinks of the rule of law. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-10-25 12:04:31 PM |
| #2 "Stop being evil, and you're no longer a part of the axis, are you?" But Fred, where's the fun in that? Then you'd have to concentrate on making the citizens of your countries' lives better, and getting along with the neighbors rather than trying to subvert and destroy them.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-10-25 11:56:42 AM |
| #1 "We fought two world wars and a cold war because power was less concentrated. " I thought that we had fought two world wars and a cold war because there existed tyrannical countries that wanted to bring the whole world under their control? ------ "The "collapse of nation states into a bigger order" has happened before, many times" Almost never voluntarily, always with the force of guns. "Never worked satisfactorily where people were anything like as diverse as those of the EU" Or you could choose to say that it has never worked satisfactorily when it was done by the force of guns, and it has *always* worked satisfactorily when it was done voluntarily. ------- "The fact that they're members of the Axis of Evil doesn't mean they have to be dealt with in the same manner. It simply means they're evil and have to be dealt with " I thought it also meant that they belonged to some kind of "axis"? And though I have no difficulty seeing Iran and N.Korea belonging to the different ends of an elongated axis that goes from N.Korea and passes to China then Russia and reaches Iran, I do have difficulty seeing Iraq belonging to that same axis. Now if al Sadr has his way, Iraq will definitely become part of that axis, but not under Saddam Hussein it wasn't. "He’s one of us or one of them. " Well it's difficult to be both a European and an American, as they are two different continents. Unless you have dual citizenship or something, which I don't think Blair does. As for your twisted interpretations of what European federalism means, those are your own twisted interpretations alone. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-25 10:39:09 AM |