Article

2003-10-25 Britain

Interview with Tony Blairâs foreign policy guru

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-10-25 8:00:13 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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.

"Heâs 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|| 2003-10-25 10:39:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-25 11:56:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-10-25 12:04:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-25 1:29:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-25 5:34:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-25 7:33:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-25 8:24:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-25 8:34:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-25 10:56:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-25 11:14:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-25 11:28:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-25 11:59:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-10-26 1:40:52 AM|| Front Page Top

02:52 Qaraqul
18:31 Dave
17:58 Dave
10:38 Super Hose
09:19 Fred
08:07 B
07:52 Raptor
01:42 B
01:40 Aris Katsaris
00:50 Jarhead
00:49 .com
00:40 Jarhead
00:32 Jarhead
00:24 .com
00:19 .com
00:14 Jarhead
00:12 NotMikeMoore
00:06 .com
00:06 NotMikeMoore
00:04 Jarhead
00:01 NotMikeMoore
23:59 Anonymous
23:57 .com
23:57 NotMikeMoore