davywavy | Those irritable French...or are they?

In the last few days, several people have sent me amusing slaggings off of the French by email in the light of their unwillingness to get involved in an invasive war of a foreign country. This mail has contained the following story:

In 1966 upon being told that Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. Troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson told Secretary of State Dean Rusk:

Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!

So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldier buried in France from World War I and World War II.

DeGaulle never answered.

All very amusing and so on, but also unfair as it neglacts to mention *why* de Gaulle pulled France out of NATO, and I'm the sort of person who gets irritated when someone tells only half a story to make someone else look bad (unless it's me doing it, in which case it's perfectly normal and justified).
Earlier in 1966, de Gaulle had got wind that the US was storing nuclear weapons in their airbases in France. Irritated that he had not been told about this, he met with General Norstad (Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe) and asked if there were US Nukes in France, and if so, how many and where. As head of state, he felt he really ought to know.
Norstad replied that he was unable to answer the question, as it would be contrary to the interests of the US (note again the phrase 'allied forces' in Norstands rank). de Gaulle glared at him and said that nobody would ever be able to say that the a French Premier again, and so pulled France out of NATO, rightly pointing out as he did so that the US position was in contravention of articles 2 and 4 of the NATO treaty.

All of a sudden, the original story looks very different. Suddenly to me it looks like the US forced a confrontation, and then moicked de Gaulle for rising to it - no surprises that he acted the way he did, then. If you add insult to injury when dealing with your treaty allies, don't act all surprised when they withdraw from the treaty - and don't try to make jokes about a situation you precipitated.

Now, I don't like being pushed into a position in which I agree with the French, but it strikes me that de Gaulles actions were perfectly justified. I can't help but wish, at the moment, that the UK had someone like de Gaulle or Thatcher in charge, who were at least capable of standing up for their own national interests, unlike the trotting poodle that the fuckwitted electorate have inflicted upon us at the moment.
Whilst I still think that giving Hussein a damn good kicking is a damn good idea, I can't help but wish we had someone who'd made up their own mind to do it and not just because George told him so.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

puddingcat.livejournal.com

But I'd point out that I got the mail from Dad, who works for MBDA, which is as much French-owned as it is British, and it came to him via Matra (the French co) :)

From:

ex-boog351.livejournal.com

Whilst I still think that giving Hussein a damn good kicking is a damn good idea, I can't help but wish we had someone who'd made up their own mind to do it and not just because George told him so.

As far as I can tell, Blair is attaching the UK to the US's foreign policy in a way which is fairly consistent with his predecessors' policies. It may that all PMs have just happened to have agreed with their counterparts in the Whitehouse. I suspect there is a consistent strategy to maximise / retain world influence through being America's closest ally, which unfortunately makes Blair look like a Poodle. Its a shame that the decision to send British troops into battle is ultimately out of our control, but if it gets rid of Saddam and his nasty gas and germs, so be it.

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

There have been exceptional moments; Reagan told Thatcher that she shouldn't fight the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands (The US had a number of counter-insurgent training camps in Argentina and didn't want the military there upset), and she told him that nobody dictated British foreign policy.
Ah, for someone like that now.

From:

ex-kharin447.livejournal.com

You appear to have discounted the fact that Thatcher has publicly endorsed Blair;s support for the United States on many occasions.

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

Not at all, I'm sure she has. However, Thatcher was capable of making her own decisions based on criteria *other* than a) What the US wanted, and b) Whether it would make her popular. Blair has yet to show any indication of being his own man.

From:

applez.livejournal.com

Actually, the alignment with the US aside, I think Blair quite fervently believes in the rhetoric of Saddam's threat and the necessity to act now. I also think he is wrong.

In terms of 'b' ... it does say a lot that Blair is doing a decidedly unpopular thing by suggesting attacking without UN approval - he has built his entire career by adhering to the popular.

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

Well, he's painted himself into a corner; he can't back down (if he does nobody will ever take him seriously again), and he can't not ('cos his political career in the eyes of the electorate will be possibly fatally damaged). I'm enjoynig watching him sweat.

From:

applez.livejournal.com

I agree that Blair has put himself in a trap of his own making, but I don't think the repercussions of backing off need be as severe as you draw up.

Yes, Blair's credibility *might* be hurt on the world stage, but actually Britain stands to come out a damn sight better than the US should there be a back-down (or a war, for that matter) ... largely because of Blair's alleged herculean 11th hour diplomatic efforts.

Domestically, Blair still doesn't have any real opposition. The Conservatives are yesterday's news (and I'm being generous on that count), and the Lib-Dems still have miles to go before they can present real alternatives to a skeptical public.

Within Blair's government, there is some risk of a Thatcherite-styled PM replacement effort, but there are no alternatives there either. What, that bruiser of a man, that Deputy PM? (I forget his name at the mo) Certainly not Brown, or Hoon, or anybody else in the current Cabinet. Even Blair has to be better than some darkhorse 'Hacker' MP/PM. ;-p

Incidentally, got to my LJ to find out which dictator you are!

----

From:

ex-boog351.livejournal.com

I agree that Blair has put himself in a trap of his own making, but I don't think the repercussions of backing off need be as severe as you draw up

Yes, Blair's credibility *might* be hurt on the world stage, but actually Britain stands to come out a damn sight better than the US should there be a back-down (or a war, for that matter) ... largely because of Blair's alleged herculean 11th hour diplomatic efforts. .

If Blair backs down, he will be seen as a weak leader here by both the press and the public. A British PM needs to be seen to be strong and principled, and I would be surprised if he could stay in office as he would be seen by the anti-war camp as the man who wanted war and was defeated by the popular movement, and by the pro-war camp as the weak leader who buckled under pressure. History may be prepared to take a kinder view, noting his courage in backing down because he accepted he had been wrong

Domestically, Blair still doesn't have any real opposition. The Conservatives are yesterday's news (and I'm being generous on that count), and the Lib-Dems still have miles to go before they can present real alternatives to a skeptical public.

Agreed. The Tories have been in real danger of going the same way as the Liberal party when the Labour movement became popular in the early 20th Century, and are still in a crisis of confidence. The main reason the Lib-Dems haven’t replaced them yet is a lack of press coverage and political experience, though they have been gaining ground in provincial elections. Incidentally, I am sure Ian Duncan Smith would have castigated as Bush’s poodle just the same as Blair, had he been in office. I do wonder what stance Blair would have taken had he still been in opposition.

I managed to Dig this little beauty up (http://www.livejournal.com/talkpost.bml?journal=boog&itemid=17126/) off the internet. A close inspection gives the clue to what America’s real strategy is in pursuing war with Iraq. I remain pro-disarmament, pro-freedom, pro-democracy, anti-tyrant, anti-proliferation, but there’s no way I’m supporting this.

From:

applez.livejournal.com

If Blair backs down, he will be seen as a weak leader here by both the press and the public. A British PM needs to be seen to be strong and principled, and I would be surprised if he could stay in office as he would be seen by the anti-war camp as the man who wanted war and was defeated by the popular movement, and by the pro-war camp as the weak leader who buckled under pressure. History may be prepared to take a kinder view, noting his courage in backing down because he accepted he had been wrong

I think you underestimate the ability of spin in this regard. If there's a war, and it turns out to be 'justified,' then Blair will come off as not only a visionary leader, but also a principled one who rode out the difficult path of diplomacy to its very end. Indeed, one could even make the argument that Blair has attempted to influence America by riding that wild bull of belligerence. If there isn't a war, with a diplomatic 'victory' - the credit is virtually entirely his. If there isn't a war, and there is no resolution vis-a-vis Iraqi arms (unlikely as that is), he can still spin it on the grounds of successes already achieved (approx 80% reduction of Iraq's relevant military infrastructure) by the deployment of the MoD and aggressiveness of his demands.

So, just as it seems he can lose everywhere, so too can he 'win' everywhere. He's taking a great gamble with his political career, for sure - but thanks to the US, is actually in far less a perilous position than he'd be otherwise.

re: British political parties

Yeah, personally, I have high hopes that the Lib-Dems can become *the* major alternative to Labour in a decade, when a host of provincial politicians can demonstrate their record and run on it. By that point, there will be a desperate need for real alternatives, since single-party rule is almost always an unhealthy enterprise in the long-run.

From:

ex-boog351.livejournal.com

wrt Blair, I agree with the points you make, but the point I was making was if Blair backs out of a war, yet Bush goes ahead anyway then he looks bad assuming the war is swift and decisive. If things then went wrong Blair would indeed seem like a visionary who had the courage to change his mind. As long as he stays with Bush he knows that Bush is ultimately the one making the decisions and he can at least claim to have tried to have restrained him and found a peaceful solution. Even so, the British press can be an unforgiving lot, especially if they think they have an angle that will yield results i.e. destroying someone’s reputation/career.

The Lib-Dems are in a great position. The Tories are discredited with large parts of the electorate, much as Labour was in the 1980’s and show little sign of hauling themselves out of the political mess they are in right now. They don’t really have the baggage or history of a Thatcher or Trade Unionist support and are likely to be reaping some political capital from their sceptical stance on war. With the exception of Thatcher, their have been very few PMs who have won elections on radical agendas, and even she was forced to abandon her monetarist experiment after a couple of years in office. I would expect either the Tories or Lib-Dems to come good again sooner or later (unless Labour implodes and tries to move out to the left).

From:

applez.livejournal.com

I agree with the points you make, but the point I was making was if Blair backs out of a war, yet Bush goes ahead anyway then he looks bad assuming the war is swift and decisive.

Fair point, I suspect there are more Euro-sceptics than -supporters in the UK, in general society. So de facto EU solidarity doesn't earn him much domestically.

re: British press

True, but in the absence of any true competitors within or without the party, I don't think Blair stands to lose much besides pie in the face. How that might impact the next provincial election cycle - now that's an issue, though distant (I think).

Labour analysis - good points. Even with this ridiculous policy right now, I sincerely hope Labour doesn't implode ... there's quite enough right-wing movements in Europe now without having to accept a party that jettisons even the pretense of balanced policies and social consciousness.

From:

ex-boog351.livejournal.com

The best potential replacements for Blair would be his key allies such as Brown, Straw or Blunkett. I would not expect them to be complicit in overthrowing him as it would tarnish their image amongst the modernisers, though if the 'men in grey suits' were to provide a candidate who attracted support, then one of them could step in if Blair lost credibilty as leader. I would expect Gordon Brown would be the favourite as he would have more appeal amongst the left of the party. There seem to be many in the Labour movement who seek a return to left-wing policies of nationalisation and trade unionist power, which would make the party unelectable without a similar change in public opinion.

I don't think there are any Tories who would make a credible alternative with the public, Portillo might have done, Ken Clarke could, but has too many enemies in the party. The Lib Dems haven't enough experience yet.

From:

applez.livejournal.com

Yes, I've read it before, it is horrible, and in fact their philosophy has been more explicitly defined along militarist-hegemonic lines in speeches to the American Institute and others (webbified, I don't know).

The problem, as I see it, is a combination of factors. And put quickly and simply, it goes something like this:

1) There is an American cultural value that firmly believes that in a dispute, if the other side is dead, the dispute is over. It is the ultimate fulcrum of 'winning' your case.

2) In the longer term, the US will be removed as the primary force in the world ... it doesn't have the same volume of people as others, has a decreasing industrial base, which is becoming as subsidised and protected as agriculture. Both are highly productive, but cannot compete openly and fairly with anyone else in the world. Moreover, the US's definition of wealth is almost entirely expressed by consumption now - a fact that not only makes the economy brittle, but has lead to a permanent trade deficit which is literally pouring the wealth of the nation to the world-at-large. Sure one can still log 'income' due to foreign production acquisition, but this then leads to a veritable power imbalance (not unlike the Ottaman Empire being largely dependent on Europe for its advanced arms, with little indigenous development). The US still capitalises on foreign wealth and 'takes the cream' from it ... but this cannot go on forever. Worse, there is the additional worry that environmental factors are starting to really play a real role in limiting growth (on a timescale of centuries).

3) Thanks in large part to the Cold War, the US has invested much of its capital wealth in what is beyond dispute, the best military in the world. Even during low points of preparedness, it still has capabilities beyond almost all other aggressors, in combination even.

These two have combined to produce this absolutely diabolical philosophy that, behind all the fluffy rhetoric is 'might makes right' and that national 'survival' is at stake.

This lot, in my opinion, are fundamentally the new isolationists. They abhor the idea of the end of the nation-state, and the end of history, and all those other quaint 'liberal' 1990s concepts. Their desire to strengthen the nation into the coming century and beyond ignores the international reality of fusing borders, mass migration, and the community of nations.

From:

applez.livejournal.com

I suspect, that a sizable number in this faction truly and forthrightly believe that the US *is* the beacon of light and civilisation in the 'dark world.' (dare I mention divinity in the same breath?) That the US is the embodiment of all that is good and therefore has a superhero-styled responsibility to show the 'right' way to the world, even to those weak-kneed Europeans.

Personally, that shit makes me heave. Another reason why I like Britain so much is that they already went through that crap, and discovered just how crap it was - so much is owed to Gandhi in that regard. What a lesson, high in embarrassment, relatively low in bloodshed.

From:

applez.livejournal.com

On that 'ultimate' fulcrum.

I suspect the reason for its cultural popularity is that as a people, a nation, a culture, it never had to develop a more sophisticated concept of success, especially not from the position of loss or 'loser' - as in the case of Germany, Britian, France, China, Africa, Russia ... well, most everyone else I suppose.

The exceptions to this very broad generality are, 'the south' of the lost Confederacy. A culture that has adapted to becoming the strident moral heart for America as a whole, as well as the actual footsoldiers of the US military machine in most cases.

The other exception are the natives, but they are effectively ignored and kept imprisoned on reservations denied opportunities for advancement. One of the worst example perhaps being Hawaiians, with no legal recognition after having their kindgom annexed.

From:

ex-boog351.livejournal.com

The statement is a justification for pursuing world peace through world dominance: militarily, economically and politically. I certainly agree that the signatories are all idealists who firmly believe that the agenda they are pushing is beneficial not just to America but to the entire world. I think it stems from a belief that the constitution is the pinnacle of political achievement, or at least vastly superior to anything else. This means an institution such as the UN is merely a side-show, and their true moral authority derives from the principles which founded the US state. Hence they beleive what they are doing is for the good of all mankind convinced of their moral superiority over those oppose them. Unfortunately, high-minded idealists convinced of their own moral superiority are often a cause for great concern as they are often determined to push their view on everyone else. Give me a healthy dose of cynical self-interested democratically elected politicians any day, they are far more likely to base their decisions on pragmatic considerations.

From:

applez.livejournal.com

No disagreement from me there. I would add that it is a terribly short-sighted and simplistic view that they share, since the peace of the gun is no peace at all.

---

From:

whiskeylover.livejournal.com

Interesting to see that while that declaration was signed by Cheney Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush, Dubya was nowhere to be seen on it. Maybe he was just not considered important enough to be involved in statements?

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

Gordon Brown? John Prescott?
Prescott as PM? God, I'd need emergency resuscitation if that happened...
I did the dictator test ages ago. Predictably, I'm Hitler.
It depends on how Machiavellian Blair is being: Machiavelli says 'Never make empty threats' - you always have to carry them through. It's a good principle to work by, IMO.

From:

applez.livejournal.com

Yeah, Prescott, that's the one ... he'd be an utter disaster to Party and Country! :-)

----

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

I can live with disasters to the Labour party; they can only be a good thing. However, disasters to the country (like Labour getting elected for instance) leave me twitchy.

From:

applez.livejournal.com

ha ha - slave of ideology you. ;-)

---

From:

ex-boog351.livejournal.com

Thatcher always understood that Labour would one day be re-elected and it was always her hope that in order to be re-elected they would have to move to the right. Would you have preferred Kinnock or Foot to Blair? Personally, I think its a shame that John Smith died, he may have made quite a good PM

From:

applez.livejournal.com

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2846389.stm

Why Blair is being so supportive of the US position...

From:

marlowe1.livejournal.com

Thatcher also publicly defended Pinochet as a worthy ally in the fight against Communism. Let her languish in obscurity - especially since we have Ann Coulter.

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

I'd take Thatcher over Blair any day you care to mention.

From:

lanfykins.livejournal.com

...I'm always amused by the way whoever's in Number 10 slavishly follows the dictates of Washington <insert NMA's 51st State song here>

Given that for well over one hundred and fifty years America's foreign policy has been determinedly anti-British, I feel I am justified in suggesting that the nature of the 'special relationship' involves one of the parties bending over.

It helps to think of that while watching Tony Blair on TV...

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

It's not anti-british; it's pro-American.
The only foreign policy that makes any sense at all is one which is pragmatic and is there to advance the interests of your own nation (that's why Robin cooks 'ethical foreign policy' was a) Bollocks, and b) a pathetic failure). US foreign policy is pro-American, and British foreign policy is pro-British. It happens that the US sends us bigger cheques than anyone else, so we support the US.
You'd be amazed how fast the special relationship would change if (say) the Chinese started offering better benefits :)

From:

applez.livejournal.com

Ah ah, Britain is the 52nd state at best. Canada is the 51st. Mexico is a protectorate. Iraq, the 53rd? We'll see. I don't expect democracy-by-force-of-arms to work ... it sure didn't for Napoleon.

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

I went to the Conservative party conference a few years ago, and raised a few hackles by joining in the anti-Euro meetings by arguing strenuously that we should join NAFTA and the dollar at the earliest opportunity.

From:

riksowden.livejournal.com

Sorry about posting it in some ways - as i said there are things i disagree with (a lot as it happens) but others which raised a chuckle...

From:

greebotrill.livejournal.com

And you wonder why I want to move there? I hate this country sometimes..

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

So when *are* you going to move here?

From:

greebotrill.livejournal.com

Probably not for a few years still.. I'm not sure we can get jobs that will pay our way for a bit still. Annoying but true.

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

bah!

From:

marlowe1.livejournal.com

Oh my G-d! Someone that wants to move to America! WHose not living in one of those war torn countries that America keeps trying to help (for purely selfish imperialist reasons of course)

From:

greebotrill.livejournal.com

Umm... I'm American and I want to move /away/ from here..

From:

weejock.livejournal.com

But why the hell to France?

From:

greebotrill.livejournal.com

I don't want to move to France.. I want to move to the UK.

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

Sensible girl.

From:

applez.livejournal.com

Hear! hear!

:-)

---

From:

xambrius.livejournal.com

That makes three of us.
I want to move to Norway.
Ahh, the ancestral homeland!

--
Tim Harris
The Seeker
Time Lord

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

Norway is bloody nice, as it happens, although personally I'd go for Finland for preference.
In the summer anyway. I like the sun to rise periodically the rest of thte time :)

From:

whiskeylover.livejournal.com

Interesting you should mention the cemetaries- those Americans are nothing if not original: One of the members of Congress, Ginny Brown-Waite, has demanded that the government pass a law offering financial assistance to all those families who have relatives buried in the soldiers' cemetaries in France, to have the remains of them repatriated. Because, like many other Americans, she feels that the French do not sufficiently honour the sacrifice those boys and girls in uniform made, to ensure the Freedom which France now enjoys.

This is not 1966 and De Gaulle, this is now!