Airstrip One

L'ennemi américaine

It is galling, when one argues for a rational analysis of the current international crises, to see that some European columnists are willing to live down to the stereotypes conjured up by the dhimmi brigade and the Eurabians.

What unsettles me even more is the crop of books studying or promoting anti-Americanism that have recently sold well in France: L’obsession anti-américaine by Jean-François Revel; Après l’empire by Emmanuel Todd and L’ennemi américaine by Philippe Roger.

Revel is a well-known conservative who has publicised many of the concerns about the fallacies of the left. A conversation between Revel and Todd revealed that the latter sociologist saw American actions as a sign of weakness rather than strength and that the "real strategic threat [to America], ...is that a nuclear Russia would ally itself with the two most important real power centers outside the United States, which are Europe and Japan".

Even an Arab writer noticed that Todd was the most enthusiastic of all the anti-American authors quoted, (along with the irrelevant and predictable aside on how well-represented the Jews are in France).

The US has sat up and noticed this surge of movement amongst French intellectuals. A forthcoming article by David Pryce-Jones in the National Review will review the books by Revel and Roger and has concluded

that anti-Americanism is not related to whatever the United States might actually be or do, but reflects murky depths of the French psyche. Persistent divisiveness and repeated social failure, general loss of influence in the world and injured pride, have solidified into an inferiority complex. Taking it for granted that France ought to be the world's leading power, French intellectuals have long been accustomed to seeing America as a standing reproach. As Philippe Roger puts it, hatred of America is nourished on a "violent contempt of oneself."

Some of the French intellectuals say that the United States acts out of weakness rather than strength due to fiscal and societal weaknesses. Others state that their own anti-Americanism is a sign of weakness rather than strength, a symptom of jealousy as they can no longer aspire to be top dog.

What I find unsettling is how France and, by extension, Europe are drowning in their own irrelevance and sleepwalking to possible disaster without getting a grip on the strategic realities that confront them. All of their skills in co-operation, mediation and negotiation will not save them from blackmail by missile toting states along their borders in the next decade. Do they dream of decadence?

I Know It's Off-topic, but I Cannot Sit Back and Watch Britain Become a Laughing-stock.<b> 31st October, 2002.

I note with utter HORROR that Princess Diana is currently top of the 100 Greatest Britons list. I implore you all to go to the B.B.C.'s web-site now & register your vote for a serious candidate -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/greatbritons/

I have just voted for Shakespeare.

You may think the whole thing beneath your notice, but please imagine the hay that Britain-haters will be able to make if a nonentity like Diana tops the list, ahead of great dead white males of the likes of Shakespeare, Newton, Churchill, & Nelson. I can already hear the bleating about how the national consciousness has changed, about how, thanks to feminism, we now consider "compassion" more important than talent or leadership or any kind of achievement; I can already read the columns droning on about how the old heroes no longer count in this new, young, vibrant, multicultural country - I can already feel myself puking. WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN. Let's show these scum that Britain still knows herself.

Jumping the Gun

D'Estaing may have miscalculated the strength of federalist feeling in the European Convention when publishing the draft of the Constitution. The document's inclusion of defence has received a negative response in Finland. In Ireland, Mr Proinsias De Rossa, Dublin MEP mooted that "that Mr Giscard was primarily interested in a congress as a vehicle for his own self-aggrandisement". No. 10's response was supportive and bland, despite press spin to show an edge of opposition.

The Press have concentrated on various aspects: the Presidency, the Congress of the Peoples of Europe, the right to withdraw, common citizenship and the common defence policy. Other important headings in the document that have not been emphasised concern: 'constructive abstentionism'; the suspension of membership; the administration of "certain competences on a federal basis"; and, the laughable injunction for the Union "to provide and promote open, effective and unostentatious administration";

Worrying aspects are the promotion of common defence, security and foreign policies; of common police and crime policies; and that "the Union budget is financed by own resources and sets out the procedure for establishing system of own resources" - the power to set taxes in EUspeak, although it has to be a balanced budget.

The whole document can be read here, and whilst it is dull, is worth examining (It is in pdf format).

We must never be isolated in Europe

No Longer.

Foreign Travel & the Social Contract 28th October, 2002.

I don't suppose Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau ever expected to see that as a title.

Messrs Carr & Goldstein have been arguing over how much protection Britannia should accord her subjects overseas. Mr Carr says, "A lot," Comrade Goldstein, as you would expect, "Sweet F.A." (or thereabouts). In the course of the argument, Mr Carr has invoked the social contract between the state & the subject, declaring that the state is breaking its terms if it fails to do everything reasonable to protect its subjects abroad. He has also implied that the social contract is a Tory idea, & this Cde Goldstein has pooh-poohed.

On this last point, Cde Goldstein is certainly right. Burke spoke of a "partnership between the dead, the living, & those yet to be born" (I misquote from memory), but that is not the same as a contract, & Hume was famously contemptuous of the theory. If any single idea encapsulates better the difference between liberalism & conservatism, I should be pleased to hear about it. We all know that the social contract is not to be taken literally, that it is an implied contract, but not even an implied contract makes sense unless there are parties to that contract who could in principle have opted not to agree to it - & that is precisely what a conservative will not allow, on the grounds that individuals are inconceivable in any sense prior to the society in which they exist. For a liberal, society is composed of individuals & exists to serve their ends, rather as a business exists to serve shareholders; for a Tory, society is an end in itself, in which, as Aristotle said, man becomes what he is meant to be - it is less like a company, & more like a family, where, leaving aside the rather inconvenient detail of the marriage contract, contracts have no place.

If a nation is like a family, then its members are no less its members for being abroad & beyond the full power of its protection. On the real point at issue, I am more in agreement with Mr Carr. The "interest" of a family is not furthered when it callously disregards the welfare of its members away from home, to the extent that people feel discouraged from leaving. At the same time, of course, individuals are responsible for their actions: the younger son who insists on frequenting the crack dens of Harlesden against parental advice cannot expect his father to interpose when his dealer turns nasty; & similarly, Britons who travel to countries in the midst of civil war have to be aware that they are taking their lives in their hands. We ought to take all reasonable steps to look after our fellow-subjects abroad, but there are obviously limits, & those limits are overreached at the cost of our fellow-subjects at home. Warnings about bombs in Bali, however, come nowhere close to those limits.

Spot the difference

A rather interesting piece comparing news stories before the Iraq weapons inspectors to now. Before it seemed that they withdrew, now it seems that they were thrown out. Why the difference?

Three in One

Anne Applebaum strains to try to understand the mind of the "appeaser".

An appeaser in this sense is generally not a bad person but simply one who has an inability to understand that you cannot deal with Stalinist, Hitlerist or Islamist tyrannies the way you deal with normal countries with which you have disputes.

Let's ignore the fact that she has put all three monsters together, showing the increasing apparent lack of depth within the war party.

Appeasers in the Daily Telegraph Dictionary of Political Thought seem to be anyone who

(a) supports Iraq's pretensions OR
(b) doesn't think that the Middle East is any of America's concern OR
(c) while seeing the Middle East as an American concern doesn't see it as a British concern OR
(d) believes that sanctions are keeping Saddam in his box very nicely OR
(e) thinks that more time would be useful before attacking

Appeasers as a term is wide and meaningless, rather like the Telegraph's foreign coverage.

The hostage situation in Russia could never have happened if the theatregoers were armed and prepared to protect themselves. British firearms control is even stricter. If Blair really feels that Britain is serious at threat from so called international terrorism (and because of our support for the US we now are) then his first task should be to ensure that all obstacles possible are placed in the way of terrorists. Most British firearms legislation should be removed or at the very least people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons so that they can protect themselves.

Barnier's Barmy Army

Michel Barnier, the European commissioner in charge of the defence working party at the European Convention, has put forward a mutual defence pact, separate from the Nato defence structure as it is his (political) ambition to "call into being a new defence initiative". Not content with the current structures, Barnier wants every member state to defend each other when they are attacked, as

The hour of truth is coming for Europe: do we want to be only an economic and financial community or do we want to become an independent political power?

If this does not occur, Europe would be reduced to the status of a "large supermarket". This analogy does not work especially as Tesco's or Walmart/Asda are more popular and more useful that this mathom.

Playing Chicken

The diplomatic debate on authorising a UN resolution to allow renewed inspection of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction and set out further consequences, if there is no co-operation, remains fluid and unresolved. The French are set on introducing their own resolution, if necessary, to avoid giving the US sanction for force.

Fergal Keane still views the diplomatic dance as a prelude to war for the jaws of the trap do not allow Iraq any manoevre. The US/UK resolution includes a demand to disarm with which Iraq will not comply, triggering the breach. Keane argues that both Russia and France will acquiesce to the US in abstaining after obtaining maximum concessions in the trade-off for their votes, probably over a six-week period.

However, the introduction of a resolution by Paris would alter this argument by providing an alternative course of action for Iraq by another western power. If France and Russia are playing a game of brinkmanship, they may raise their stakes too high as the US will bring the resolution to a vote and move outside the Security Council arena.

If the Security Council is rendered irrelevant in this instant, it is unclear if the US will return to it for sanctioning other actions in its current and future 'wars on terror'.

Apres Moi, la deluge?

Daniel arap Moi has been forced to resign without his retirement package ("including a fleet of seven cars, a staff of 34, a 12-bedroom house and a state funeral") as dissidents in his own party, Kenya's African National Union (KANU), allied with the opposition in order to prevent the appointment of his representative, Jomo Kenyatta, as presidential candidate.

However, Kenya is a possible candidate for instability. With its strategic position near the Horn of Africa, any possible upsets could lead to the deployment of troops.

The Mau Mau insurgency (1949-1963) shows our own historical relationship with Kenya, steeped as it is in Empire.

The Naive Idiot

Suddenly Blair finds that his newfound chums have gone behind his back and set out a deal that preserves the CAP for another decade. Cue loud noises for the renewed Franco-German axis!

Headlines state this is the 'compromise' deal required to obtain enlargement and France/Germany pressing fait accomplis on their unimportant partners. A few more disappointments like this and Blair might start to change his tune on how useful the EU is. After all, as Peter Hain demonstrates, there's nothing like the zeal of the convert.

The Transnationalist Right Part II

When I wrote my first thoughts on this phenomenon and began to map out descriptions and categorisations utilised by the Left to describe elements of conservatism that embraced transnationalism: comment received was a standard primer on libertarian foreign policy from Perry De Havilland which seemed to percieve my post as an exploration of transnationalist libertarianism, an oxymoron, if ever I heard one. However, it did not really answer my question - how should we respond to such transnationalist ideas, as invoked on the right, which is affiliated to but rather larger than the libertarian community?

One of the problems of transnationalism on the right is that it is focussed on economic issues, rather than politics and ideology like the Left, and often functions as support for the supranational authority of the IMF, WTO, the World Bank and their more regional clones, EBRD etc. That is why it is far more difficult to engage with their arguments and move towards alternatives.

One example of transnationalism quashing libertarian sympathies in Guatemala.

A good example of an alternative is Tom Borroughes, "How Capitalism Saved Governments From Their Own Folly: The Global Financial System in the Nineties" at the Libertarian Alliance website under Economic Notes (Publications pdf format).

Bali - 24th October 2002

It is unlikely that those tourists who embarked for Bali before the bombing could anticipate the atrocity that was to kill so many without mercy and in cold blood. Bali was seen as a popular tourist resort and the average holidaymaker is unlikely to check the probability of terrorism or political volence before heading out. Moreover, there was a public interest for commercial companies and the Balinese authorities to play down any possible 'events' that could occur and advertise the 'stability' of the island.

Nevertheless, we have seen that this has reinforced the worldview of the 'clash of civilisations' that acts as the foundation for many of those who support the war on terror: a world of bloodfeuds and honour killings, extending the tribal cultures of Pakistan and Afghanistan across the entire Arab World. (Rantburg reference). Islam is represented as an absolute that has never been compatible with the Western Enlightenment.

Whereas, we are dealing with many different countries that extend from a Western ally, Turkey, to an anarchy, Somalia and all republics, monarchies and theocracies inbetween. Whose inhabitants encompass communists, nationalists, pan-Arabists, Islamists and democrats. You can read an Iranian democrat, a very brave one, here. (Adriana Cronin of Samizdata for this).

By invoking the cultural argument, we also contribute to the media misrepresentation that this girl refers to. We represent Islam as an amorphous opponent, the 'other', when we should try to provide more space within our own media for the elements within those cultures that uphold our values, and as a counterbalance to such an oversimplification.

Good or Bad? - 24th October 2002

On the plus: this poll by EuroBarometer, published in the Grauniad shows that only 33% of the British trust their government or the European Commission. Only the French manage to beat us, at 30%.

On the downside: the British are remarkably ignorant of foreign affairs.

I prefer to think that this bodes well. Probably wishful thinking.

The problem with us Europhobes is...

that we think that the Euro will put Brussels in charge of us. But David Marsh argues that no-one's in charge.

What the Germans feel about Democracy

We've gone over this stuff before, but here's another cautionary tale about the ultra-Dovres attitude towards free speech. And there are still people who want us to harmonise our democratic institutions with these people.

The Anglosphere in Action

Are the IRA acting in cahoots with the Islamicists? It would be a cruel irony when we remember that the provisional IRA would have been wiped out if not for Ameriacan and Australian supporters in NORAID. Truly the Anglosphere in action.

Bali Complications

Can we say for certain that the Bali bomb was a simple Al Qeada operation? According to Thomas Walkom on the Toronto Star there's more than meets the Bin Laden obsessed eye. First there's the Indonesian nationalists:

Perhaps it was the work of disgruntled military elements connected to the former Suharto dictatorship. According to the Far Eastern Economic Review, retired generals anxious to destabilize Indonesia's civilian government are believed responsible for a series of bombings in 1999 and 2000, including one at the Jakarta Stock Exchange that killed 15 and wounded dozens.

And Jemaah Islamiyah don't seem like a compliant cell of Al Qaeda:

The roots of Jemaah Islamiyah go back to the founding of Indonesia itself, to regional rivalries between the central government and those who — under the banner of Islam — demanded more authority for the outlying islands.

And the ultimate heresy:

Terrorism is not a global abstraction. It occurs for reasons — often local, occasionally mundane.

Does Al Qaeda exist?

Al Qaeda changes its ways says the Economist. This nebulous group is apparantly getting more nebulous with cells entirely independent of one another. Which begs the question, does Al Qaeda exist in any meaningful form?

What to do after the Referendum

If we lose the referendum on the Euro we can always vent our spleen by targetting the BBC. This site talks about a civil disobedience campaign.

Balancing Power

Christopher Layne of the Cato institute gives some reasons why the balance of power always comes snapping back, and showing how the Offensive Realists deserve only the first of their two names.

Just how special is that relationship?

From The Times:

AMERICA should never allow the concerns of allies or worries of the public to dictate its military aims, according to Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary.

He means us.

Hedging the bets

John Simpson has "a nasty feeling that the doomsayers on Iraq may be right". Now I don't share in Mr Simpson's feelings - personally I think that the Iraqi army has proven itself to be ineffective and unless the Americans advertise any intention to slaughter the population of Iraq then most Iraqi troops will see the war as a fight for the political life of Saddam. No, it's the occupation that will get bloody.

However, just in case the invasion doesn't go so well - here's one reason why.

A deadlist, not an argument

Isn’t it odd how those who claim to be critical and rational tend to heap irrational abuse on critics? One of these irrational anti-critics is Perry de Haviland of Samizdata. He promises 33 arguments for our involvement in the war on the abstract noun, and comes up with a deadlist from the attrocity in Bali.

That’s not an argument.

Were these unfortunate souls targetted because they were British? All the best guesses as to why they were targetted point to another unfortunate nationality. Were they attacked on British soil?

It may sound callous, although that rarely stops me, but the Brits in Bali chose to be there. One would therefore assume that they chose the risk of going to a badly constructed state with a number of civil wars going on and 100 million Muslims. If they didn’t know, then they should have been more careful. It’s called taking responsibility for your own life.

There are two ways to avoid tragedies in poorly functioning third world states. The first is to get your government to launch an open-ended crusade against a major world religion. The second is to not go there. The second has far more certain results. The state should not be in the business of guaranteeing a free born Briton’s right to immaculate beaches and all night discos.

The British government should be concentrating on stopping terrorist outrages over here. That will involve deporting the radical Muslim leadership, almost entirely foreign born and a complete halt on immigration from Islamic countries and communities. I seem to remember a certain exchange when Mr De Havilland condemened the Australian government for not allowing Muslim immigrants on to Australian soil. Does he still think that they were wrong?

Tranris

Philip Chaston talks about the Transnational Right. But who are they? I would not personally include the socially liberal and tax raising Ken Clarke as he would in any sane world be counted as much a centrist as Tony Blair, perhaps more so. Even his youthful indulgence was not with Libertarianism or the Monday Club but Mosleyism, that strange extremism of the center (Europe a Nation and all that).

Perhaps it is the neo-conservatives who are the best exhibits of the Transnational Right, and their outriders in the Anglosphere Cult. To an untrained ear they seem to hold the international community in scorn (good) and even say good things about the nation state when contrasted to the Belgian Empire. However every now and again the mask slips, and they come up with some remark like Richard Perle's idea that Chancellor Schroeder should resign after he got elected on an anti-war and (let's be honest) anti-American platform. It's called regime change.

Hindu Kush Watch

A bit of a lefty rant this, but Counterpunch has a nice little article on
Afghanistan One Year Later.

Dwarfed

Alexander Cockburn sallies forth on the United Nations and dwarf tossing. From the (sort of) left.

Usual FO Contempt for British Citizens 18th October 2002

Baroness Amos had to apologise in Bali today for the lack of support that British diplomats had shown to victims of the bombing and their relatives. It also appears that the controversy on warnings over Bali is now being addressed over here. The BBC gave the apology two paragraphs in a far longer report.

How Bush could lose

Not the war of course, but the elections, or at least the Republicans. The assumption seems to be that the Republicans may do quite well in the coming congressional elections. However what are they talking about, the war or the economy? What do people vote on, pocketbook or patriotism?

The very fact that the Democrats have little interesting to say on the war would be discomforting when the economy is going well (as it is with the Tories over here), but not only have share portfolios gone sour - but the share portfolios are held by those who tend to vote.

And what's the Republican response? Talk about the war.

We'll see.

The Transnationalist Right

With the recent arguments on transnationalist progressivism put forward by John Fonte of the Hudson Institute, there was a space that the concept did not appear to address. As W. James Antle III (great name!) of etherzone commented,

This is not to suggest that transnationalism is solely a prerogative of the left. There is also a transnational right that believes that the nation-state is becoming superfluous, or at least would like to help it become so.

Unfortunately, most of the possible analysis of a transnational conservatism or a transnational capitalism has been constructed by tired Marxists attacking the corporate boogieman. A more detailed argument is put forward by Eduardo Viola with a rather clumsy political model that invites criticism but it sets out some of the features of transnationalist conservatism.

The Conservative-globalists are in favor of open economies to the world market, a central role to the transnational corporations, a partial disarmament and a gradual improvement of the UN partially limiting the Nation State’s power in order to built a transnational authority based on a stratified structure of countries: empowerment of the Security Council (enlarged), the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. The CG are the dominant force in the world system and they represent what is known as neoliberalism. Some examples of the CG are: predominant sectors from the great North American, West-European and Japanese parties, the modern sectors from the Brazilian center and right parties, the Chilean National Party, the modern sector from the Argentinean Justice Party (Cavallo), governing since 1989.

The transnationalist right in Britain includes such figures as Kenneth Clark, Michael Heseltine and other pro-eu and pro-euro conservatives. It might be argued that it also includes the Anglospherists and other conservative groups that put forward a cultural and political alternative to the European Union yet implicitly recognise the diminution of the nation-state on the global stage.

Whilst the tranzis (coined by David Carr of Samizdata, I believe), have been critiqued and rightly so, there does not appear to have been a focus on what transnationalism means for conservatives and libertarians.

How Democracy works in Germany

According to Die Welt (via the Sun) substantial numbers of Germans want to ditch the Euro. Is there a significant party that represents this wish?

As I was saying earlier about why the far right will always be with us...

What is Corpus Juris

Corpus Juris is the common body of law, both criminal and civil, that countries have to adopt to belong to that "free trade area" known to us as the European Union. A new website has been set up to campaign on this. Well worth a visit (and for other bloggers to highlight).

High Watermark, not the end of the flood

The fall of the Dutch government is bound to make many of the established parties feel that another far-right dragon has been slain. Europe can not go back to sleep yet.

The next couple of years are likely to see an ebbing of the populist right throughout Europe as the gains of the past couple of years are whittled down. This will be complacently written up as a retreat. However this is mistaken. For as long as the left fail to represent the concerns of the working class in favour of a toned down sixties radicalism, and the right refuse to put forward anything approaching traditionalism on the "national question" there will still be a resevoir for the populist right.

We must hope that populists such as Fortuyn and Haider will continue to draw from it rather than borderline fascists such as Le Pen and Griffin - and we must hope that we can still spot the difference.

Shifting Sands

So there's been a sharp rise in favour of war on Iraq?

Personally I think that the crucial fact was in the second paragraph: "The survey, which was carried out on Monday", the Monday after the weekend when there was a bomb in Bali.

Although the support will evaporate as memories fade, and people start asking just how important Bali really is to the UK, this is an indictment of the anti war movement. The simple fact is that the anti war movement is still not engaging with the electorate. We are still hearing about Iraqi orphans and American plans for oil pipelines.

The British people do not care for these arguments. By a strange coincidence they do not care for Blair's arguments, yet. However as long as the peace movement ignore their killer argument, that what happens in the middle east is not worth the bones of a Lincolnshire grenadier, they will still be vulnerable.

And the country will be worse for it.

Who runs the government?

Governor of Bank of France urges budget cuts. Of course the EU won't interfere in democratic decision making. Of course.

The Trots are with us

It's not often that I'll link to the Socialist Alliance website, however as they have agreed to opose the Euro (despite some arm twisting), I thought you'd all like to know.

Of course they've made a complete mess with the peace movement, but at least they will only play a supporting role here.

Monopoly Money

I know you're tired of my constant assertions that the Euro is a joke currency, but here's a bit more evidence.

The danger of moving targets

A rather interesting article on War, Extradition and the Atlantic Alliance (second part is here). Basically it bemoans Europe's uptight attitude on the death penalty and the way it hampers the war on terror.

The problem is that the war on terror has not focussed on the terror and instead concentrated on the war. This doesn't just mean that war aims are extending indefinately (although they are) but also that the law enforcement aspect is lacking.

This has meant that Bin Laden hasn't been found (or if he has it's being kept quiet to keep the war going). It also means that Europe has been pressured to sign up to irrelevant UN declarations while comparitively little pressure has been laid on European countries to extradite Mohamedan agitators either to the US or back to their home countries.

It has also meant that critics of the war can (wrongly) state that by focussing on Iraq we have let Al Qaeda slip through the net and commit the Bali bombing. Of course the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. The war on Iraq is about ensuring Israel's future place in the Middle East by keeping her strategic superiority. The war on terror is about dismantling Al Qaeda - essentially a law enforcement problem. The problem is that to ensure support they have been muddled up.

Now the war critics are using the same logic that the war supporters were using.

Where's Paddy?

An interesting little analysis of Bosnia's election, where Paddy Ashdown has had his only taste of power.

Oils well that ends well

An interesting article on oil security from Fortune. I do have a couple of quibbles. It was not primarily the oil price that pushed Britain into recession, but rather the inappropriately high interest rates (and so the price of future investment) set by the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

Secondly it talks of various fancy mechanisms to wean America off oil. Most involve increasing it's price or the attractiveness of alternatives. But surely a crisis, or even the expectation of a crisis, would do that through the price mechanism? Why not just leave it to the market?

Changing European Assumptions of the United States

Many of the postwar, staunch allies of the United States have appeared sceptical and estranged from their principal ally over the last few years. The vote from NATO, invoking article 5, where an attack on one was an attack on all, was supposed to demonstrate support for the 'war on terror' through the longstanding structures of the United States alliance with nation-states on the European continent. Yet the last year has only exacerbated the divisions that had been slowly coming to the fore since the end of the Cold War.

The historical explanation for these actions lies in the multilateral structure of the alliance mediated through NATO where powers were constrained to find a consensus before they could act and led European countries to expect such a process of consultation and co-operation to continue in the long-term. The shift in the security policy of the US towards a greater unilateralism and an objective of maintaining its military dominance over all possible rivals has discomfited their expected role.

Some of the blame lies with many European countries for dismantling their security apparatus to such an extent that they were no longer able to play a fruitful role in the military expeditions required by the current 'war on terror'. However, greater attention to diplomatic detail on the part of the Bush administration could have played a part in defusing rather than exacerbating the current tensions within these relationships.

The management and maintenance of diplomatic relationships and the construction of alliances remain great weaknesses for the Bush administration, since these skills are discounted in favour of deploying military force, under the contemporary terroristic pressures. It also contributes to the more public tensions between the State Department and the Department of Defense.

European countries are less well-placed to react to the threats that affect their periphery. On issues like unstable states acquiring missiles that threaten them, utilising weapons of mass destruction, they remain curiously silent, neither entering into debate, nor recognising that these could be used against them. They have not made a proper and public recognition of the political and security measures required to maintain peace.

Since these threats do exist and, especially near Europe's borders, there will come a time, in the not too distant future, when their electorates will link security with greater defence spending, missile defences and (possibly) closer ties with the United States.The two themes that those who argue that European states and the United States are drifting apart tend to neglect are that 1) their economies become more closely intertwined every year and; 2) both face the same threat.

Eye witness report form the Hague - latest proceedings of the ICTY

This is from the Committee for Peace in the Balkans on 16th October.

Tam Daleyll MP, with Michael Gavrilovic and Stan Gasparovski
Tam Dalyell MP hosts this public seminar in which Michael Gavrilovic and Stan Gasparovski report back from a recent visit to the International Criminal Tribunal on former Yugoslavia in the Hague. Despite the dominance of United States funding for NATO's war crimes tribunal, the trials conducted by Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte and her team are not always going in the way that the American government might wish.

7pm Committee Room 12
House of Commons, London SW1

Whoops

Britain in Europe have hired an economist who's against the Euro. Planks.

The Unilateralist Iron Fist inside the Multilateralist Velvet Glove

Here's Robert Kagan explaining why the UN Security Council is not the foundation of international law. The Bush administration seeks UN approval because it makes their relationships with their allies easier, but if this is unobtainable, then it's dispensable.

That is the difference between the EU/transnationalists who view the United Nations as the only basis for international law and action and those of us who wonder how long it would take for the blood to run in genocides and massacres before it was thought that they should possibly do something.

You can just imagine this current crew of appeasers saying to the respective victims of Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Hussein/Suharto/Amin/the Hutus/Mugabe/Ne Win/Hirohito/Mengistu (add who you want)...."we'd love to help you, but we couldn't get a resolution, and that's the law, so you're on your own".

Blair's Meetings

These are usually a very good indication of the importance attached to particular countries in the ongoing campaign against Iraq. Blair has met Putin in order to woo him over to support or abstention in the event of a new UN resolution. There is some debate as to whether Putin left the door open, whilst disputing the current existence of WMD, or maintained its current position of supporting an inspectorate without war.

Now, a day later, and after the conclusion of the Pakistani and Indian Kashmiri polls, Vajpayee is meeting the PM in London to discuss the situation in South Asia. Does this indicate a closer military and diplomatic working relationship between India and the UK under the auspices of the 'War on Terror', a linkage that complements other relationships such as Israel-India, Israel-Turkey and India-US?

An Old Pattern Re-emerges...for the last time?

Victor Davis Hanson, in the National Review, argues that the Anti-Americanism articulated by Schroeder and other members of the Left in Germany during their election campaign, was symptomatic of an older resurgence of German nationalism. Whilst he draws parallels between the rhetoric utilised by the moderns to their counterparts in the Weimar Republic and various echoes of the nationalist Sonderweg, Hanson also debates whether this development is a permanent seachange in Mitteleuropa with a resurgent Deutscheland encroaching on its neighbours.

There is not enough evidence to support this thread and, as Germany needs American friendship, rather than vice versa, we have already seen the abandonment of the rhetoric employed during the election campaign. The shadow cast remains as President Bush tends to personalise his relationships with other political leaders and can hold a grudge better than any other Texan.

However, the interesting part of the article reads:

And that fact may well usher in a slow return, after a half century, to an inevitable bilateralism with particular European states — with all its attendant dangers that we have seen in that part of the world over the last 130 years.

In the current crisis, we have seen bilateral relationships with the United States amongst the nation states of Europe ranging from participation to opposition. But is this a last hurrah? When the EU dominates a common foreign policy after 2004, or possibly even earlier if the Irish vote 'No', there will be far less manoevrability for the bilateral relationships that we see today, as the multilateral approach of the EU will take precedence.

Such a policy would be antipathetic to US interests and would hasten Europe's relative economic decline.

Not Gagged

Supposedly this article on MI6 pying Bin Laden £100,000 has been D-Noticed. So all you British readers, look away now.

The Cult gets it wrong

James Bennett, high priest of the Anglosphere cult, talks about a rather strange little proposal on seceding from the European Union:

Andrew Duff, a delegate belonging to the rabidly Eurofederalist British Liberal Democratic Party, has proposed that nations belonging to the Union not be allowed to withdraw from the treaties of membership without the assent of every other member-state.

Whereas what the actual text of the proposal says:

Amendments to the Constitution, or the accession or secession of a member state or associate member, will take effect if supported either:

(i) by the Council, acting by a three-quarters majority of the member states, and by the Parliament acting by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, and ratified thereafter by all member states according to their own constitutional requirements; or

(ii) by a referendum of the citizens of the Union, by the Parliament and by the Council.

Looks like two thirds to me. Needless to say Philip Chaston on Airstrip One got it right. Jim's probably thinking of the present state of play.

Surrendering Champ

Are they in a competition? This surrendering sovereignty lark. First those Continental gangsters on trade policy and then the American chicken hawks on all defensive matters - now we have a proposal to
hand over immigration to the United Nations. It's a good thing that immigration policy is not something that attract criminal gangs and that the United Nations is notoriously incorruptible.

Any more inappropriate surrenders? Perhaps our health service could be given over to the International Postal Union?

Raising the price

Russia still wants more money for not using that UN veto. According to the Times:

After several hours of talks between the two leaders at Mr Putin's dacha in Zavidovo, north of Moscow, Mr Putin told a news conference that he had seen no "trustworthy data" to support Britain and America's claim that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

What they think of Democracy

If the Irish referendum on Nice fails a second time, the EU may simply ask the Dail to vote it in. Who cares about the voters?

And what's wrong with that?

There are plenty of reasons to be wary of the foreign policy of the Bush administration, but William Pfaff get's it wrong when he complains that the government cares too much about national security. Isn't that what governments are there for?

Tell us something we don't know

Business groups say that the war will be bad for the economy, by increasing oil prices, uncertainty and (eventually) taxes.

Can the American Empire go on for ever?

Yes says Linda Colley. You see it's a culture thing. Everyone can understand American culture. Of course small matters such as economic self interest and strategic security don't matter to the post-modernist academics that the Guardian calls on. They probably found economics or geography too difficult at A Level.

No says The Nation, and American old-left rag. It's all to do with the evils of free trade and the free movement of capital and America will die by its own capitalist sword, evil laugh. (I paraphrase this a bit liberally).

Almost says David Ross. America is still relatively strong, don't you know? The problem is whether other countries who spend less on government in general (so that doesn't include the EU) and the military in particular may find that without the dead weight spending they start to pull ahead. Then when ahead economically they start to comparatively effortlessly put the extra money in the armed forces (I know this will end in tears but they're at a different stage in the cycle). Then the old power finds himself overstretched and with a whole sheath of previously latent emnities. This is not the American present but the English, French, Dutch, Spanish, Mughal and Chinese pasts.

Perhaps America's not past her peak, we'll only know for sure in fifty years time. That is an entirely different thing from saying that there will be no peak.

One For ... 8th October 2002

Jack Spencer, of the Heritage Foundation, has written a useful summary of the current foundations for the strategy of 'pre-emptive action' and its application to the Iraqi crisis, entitled "Presidential Authority in the War on Terrorism: Iraq and Beyond".

They are outlined as follows:

Principles for Preemptive Action
The right to self-defense is codified in customary international law and in the charter of the United Nations.
The right of "anticipatory self-defense" allows for preemptive strikes.
The United States government alone has the authority to determine what constitutes a threat to its citizens and what should be done about it.
The President as commander in chief has the authority to use America's armed forces to "provide for the common defense."

Learning From the September 11 Attacks
Deterrence alone is not sufficient to suppress aggression.
Attacks can occur with little or no warning.
The use of a weapon of mass destruction is reasonably likely.
A deadly synergy is created when hostile state and non-state agents conspire.
The future envisioned by America's enemies is incompatible with U.S. security.

The Case Against Iraq
Warnings have not deterred Iraq from overtly hostile actions that threaten the United States and its interests.
Iraq's ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction means that the United States or its interests could be the targets of an attack with little or no warning.
Iraq's history of using WMD demonstrates the likelihood that it will use them in the future.
Iraq's aggression and ties to international terrorism comprise a deadly combination that must be confronted.
Iraq's blatant disregard for its 1991 cease-fire agreement makes it clear that its vision of the future is incompatible with America's security.

A clear and straightforward 'catch-all' foundation for liberal imperialism, that safeguards US security and sanctions all actions necessary to achieve that goal.

Any country whose actions are perceived to be inimical to the US and has weapons of mass destruction that could be used with little or no warning against them is a legitimate target. Start counting them...Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, Britain etc. etc.

Three Voices Against War

Sheldon Richman, of the Future of Freedom Foundation, inverts the arguments of pro-war armchair generals and debates the Arab 'deterrent', oil, that prevents the United States from interfering freely in the Middle East. If Saddam Hussein were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, this would vastly strengthen the Arab 'deterrent' in their dealings with Israel and the West.

Another curiosity was this piece by Ed Lewis who appears to distrust all forms of government in the United States, and by a convoluted attack on media disinformation, appears to end up supporting Hussein. Useful in showing how that 'militia mindset' can end up cheering the enemies of the US because they happen to oppose the government. Worryingly, he keeps quoting 'The Independent' - possibly misled by the name.

Alan Bock at Anti-War is another sceptic.

Interventionists under the skin

Brendan O'Neil directs his scorn on the anti-war demonstrators.

A story of two inspectors

Richard Butler is for war on Iraq, and Scott Ritter is agin. Which one therefore is the wild eyed left winger and which is the sensible Conservative?

Well OK, so Ritter's the Republican who voted for Bush - most of you knew that. But Butler? Well according to this article:

Mr Butler, an Australian, told a seminar at the University of Sydney's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies that Americans did not appreciate they could not claim a right to possess nuclear weapons but deny it to other nations.

So he's a disarmer, and he wants America to go to war to further world disarmament. It get's worse.

Domestic Politics Intrusion

I rarely comment on domestic politics, however... An article from You Gov on the Tories' predicament:

Listing eight different areas for improvement, and asking respondents whether each one would make them more or less likely to vote Conservative, here’s the order:
+68: convincing policies to make the economy stronger and create more opportunity;
+64: convincing new policies to reduce crime on our streets;
+58: radical new policies for funding the health service;
+51: convincing policies to help the vulnerable;
+29: becoming the party of freedom and reducing the nanny state;
+25: a more modern image;
+20: a promise to cut taxes;
and last, at –10: ensuring more candidates are women and people from ethnic minorities.

So what's the thing that our Theresa's doing?

Profiling America

This article from the National Interest argues for speaking softly with the big stick.

The Bush Administration has made progress over the past year in its campaign against Al-Qaeda. But much work lies ahead. The best way to crush Al-Qaeda is not to build a worldwide empire based mainly on military force, but instead to lower America’s profile around the globe while improving its image in the Islamic world.

Falling Empires

One of the reasons I've been sceptical about attaching ourselves too closely to the American cause has been the certainty that one day American power will decline - as ours did. Some people think that this has already happened.

Globalising Parties

What's so wrong with global political parties they ask Samizdata. Nothing at all.

This is perhaps the same thinking that got the Conservatives into the European People's Party. "We both hate the Socialists so let's join the Christian Democrats. What difference can there be"?

Of course different nations face different questions, and parties supply different bundles of answers. Thus the Labour Party in Britain was (until the 1980s) fairly staunchly pro-NATO and sceptical about the free market, while the Italian Communists were roughly opposite.

Of course where the Samizdata people see no real difference is between the problems addressed by the Conservatives and Republicans - and they would be backed by the present leadership of the Conservative Party. This may be one of the reasons why the polls are so dire at the moment.

Why the Tories still matter

From the Telegraph:

The Labour Party signed up to a "quantum leap" in European integration yesterday, including an abolition of the national veto in areas of foreign policy and proposals to give the Charter of Fundamental Rights full legal status as part of a new European constitution.

They couldn't organise a... 6th October 2002

It appears that Galileo, the European rival to GPS, has not even got off the ground. The Italians and Germans are squabbling about who manufactures what, and, if we are lucky, it may be abandoned.

The Tory Contribution to the European Convention 5th October 2002

Heathcote-Amory did speak at the Plenary Session of the European Convention on the 12th September 2002. Like Andrew Duff, he used his speech to set out the official position of his party on the future structure of the European Union.

As expected, he agrees that the European Union faces an unpopular series of electorates and that Europe dows not have a demos. And the European Convention itself:

The convention has so far excited little general interest, press coverage is limited and popular involvement almost non existent. The Convention debate with civic society was conducted largely with known interest groups and EU-subsidised institutions. There is a real danger that the Convention will degenerate into a bargaining process between existing institutions and vested interests.

One must ask how does a body that is degenerate degenerate? But, then again, the Tories have been asking that question of themselves for years.

How does one make an unworkable system work? The Tories give it a try. They fail, but some of the tests are passed, like the right to secede, removing most of the acquis communautaire, limiting the EU to core competencies.

This was interred on their website, in order to prevent any debate, though it does bear a certain similarity to the document that Heseltine, Clarke, Britten, Major and other has-beens put forward in September. So, is conservative policy on Europe now decided by the pro-Europeans, who are unwilling to observe any discipline and never shut up.

Still, this activity has a purpose. The Constitutional draft will be presented on the 28th October 2002 to the Convention. One to be marked in the diaries if they have the courage to publish it.

A further view on the motives of Russia

The Jerusalem Post commented on this following Sharon's visit to Putin earlier this week. As war is inevitable, these actions are designed to shore up their position in a post-Baathist Iraq.

However, Yuri Fedetov, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, again reiterated that Russia sees no need for further actions beyond those given by existing UN resolutions. Could it be that Russia does not wish the war against Iraq to begin because it is a defender of the status quo in the Middle East, conservative in its diplomacy as its interests could be undermined by this upheaval?

Resisting the empire

An interesting proposal to any who are considering direct action against the EU.

The Euro and the Economy

It looks like the Eurozone still has some way to go in the doldrums. I wonder whether they'll still make the economic arguments for the Euro.

They're cracking

Seems like there are more ructions in the Young European Movement.

The Opposition must oppose

Says Malcolm Rifkind in the Spectator. There are some excellent questions raised here.

Fallout over Germany 3rd October 2002

Chancellor Schroeder dined with Chirac last night to repair the snub given in flying to Great Britain rather then France for his first foreign meeting after his election victory. Nevertheless both leaders share a hostile attitude towards Anglo-American actions and this is being used as a common base for a rapprochement. France's two-step approach of a further resolution to sanction military action, if inspections were to fail, remains unacceptable to the United States, but ensures diplomatic support in Russia and in the European Union. The common foreign policy has fallen by the wayside as the pro-war grouping (Great Britain, Spain and Italy) are opposed by the 'French school', with Germany at an extreme.

Despite the fears that attend the possible outcomes of any war in the Gulf, there are a number of positive short-term developments. One is the impotence and incoherence of the European Union in this crisis, which argues that the institutional limits of the foreign common policy have already been reached. The second is the possible neutering of the United Nations after its revival when the balance of power broke down after 1989. The power of the Security Council depends to a large extent on the recognition that it receives from the United States, and, if this is withdrawn, the body may well sink into irrelevance.

Anglosphere Ferment

Steven King asks what is the likely impact of the new book, A Secret History of the IRA, Stateside? Thanks to Slugger O'Toole for the link (for more discussion go here).

Israel & Anti-Semitism. 3rd October, 2002.

My good Cde Goldstein dismisses as absurd the allegations that are often made that criticisms of Israeli policy are anti-Semitic, or, more precisely, anti-Jewish. Logically, of course, he is right to do so: there is no necessary connexion between opposition to a government & hatred of a race. But empirically, I am not so sure.

Some of the most trenchant criticism of Israel comes from the isolationist right, a group with whom Airstrip One is generally in sympathy; yet I find it perplexing & perturbing that our friends should be so exercised about Israel when, coolly considered, their avowed principles seem to enjoin a more neutral stance. What, after all, has the Arab-Israeli conflict to do with Britain? How are British interests affected by the non-existence or otherwise of a Palestinian state? Why should we care? By all means argue for the elimination of pro-Israeli bias from policy-making, but why go so far beyond that?

Very well, the anti-Zionist answers; we are not arguing about government policy, merely expressing our private opinion of the rights & wrongs of a conflict in another part of the world. Fair enough. But I cannot help wondering why this conflict. Palestinian sympathisers are for ever bleating, “What about the Palestinians?” whenever any oppressed group anywhere in the world is mentioned; I find myself sorely tempted, whenever the Palestinian question is raised yet again, to bleat in reply, “What about Tibet? East Timor? Kashmir? Zimbabwe? Chechnya?” Our friends seem to be selective in the conflicts they comment on, & I wonder what their principle of selection is.

Easy, the anti-Zionist answers: the Arab-Israeli conflict is by some distance the world’s most “high-profile” conflict; everybody else is talking about it, so why shouldn’t we? Fair enough again. But what about the way they talk about it? Think of all the sticks the right-wing isolationist uses to beat Israel with: Israel defies U.N. resolutions; Israel breaches “human rights”; Israel has “weapons of mass destruction”; Israel doesn’t allow in weapons inspectors; Israel restricts the movements of the international press; Israel blah blah blah. When similar accusations are made against Iraq, these very same right-wing isolationists regard them as so unimportant that they question the motives of those who make them; they can hardly complain, then, when I question their motives when they make precisely the same accusations against Israel, especially when – this is the nub of the thing – U.N. resolutions & human rights seem to acquire importance only when Israel infringes them, whereas the rest of the time, right-wing isolationists quite rightly couldn’t give a damn about U.N. resolutions & human rights. There must be an ulterior motive, & the odds are it is anti-Semitism.

It would, of course, be a genetic fallacy to reject criticism of Israel because we disliked its motive. The motive does not affect the truth of the criticism. But it should give us pause.

Leave the IMF

A friend e-mailed this article. Harmful as well as corrupt and expensive. Im shocked, shocked.

And did you know that some third world countries count foreign aid as tax receipts in their budgets? Now I'm getting annoyed.

My last word on Germany

I promise.

This article in the Spectator is a nice survey of the German election result. I particularly like this line:

They thought they could rely on Mr Schroeder, yet they find that simply in order to win an election he has renounced their policy on Iraq, and has done so without even consulting them.

Acting like an independent democracy? How dare they.

Clinton bashes IDS

The wages of sin are death, and the wages of trusting New Labour are a neat stab in the kidneys. Iain Duncan Smith has been loyally following the government line on all things foreign. Does he get thanks from a beleagured Blair? Of course not. While IDS suspends politics as usual, Blair - through his attack dog Clinton - goes in for the kill. Some of the relevant extracts from that Clinton speech (all of which would have been vetted by Alistair Campbell):

On the Tories:

That is the importance of politics of choices. I understand now that your Tories are calling themselves compassionate Conservatives (laughter). I admire a good phrase (Laughter). I respect as a matter of professional art adroit rhetoric, and I know that all politics is a combination of rhetoric and reality. Here is what I want you to know. The rhetoric is compassionate, the Conservative is the reality.

I saw Gordon Brown's speech which thoroughly and for ever disabused the Conservatives of the notion that the centre left cannot be troubled or trusted to manage the economy.

On the Republicans:

This is a delicate matter but I think this whole Iraq issue is made more difficult for some of you because of the differences you have with the Conservatives in America over other matters, over the criminal court and the Kyoto Treaty and the comprehensive test ban treaty. I don't agree with that either, plus I disagree with them on nearly everything, on budget policy, tax policy , on education policy. On education policy, on environmental policy, on health care policy. I have a world of disagreements with them.

All good knocking copy, but wasn't he bought on to win over the war doubters? Well, it does help to bash the Tories on prime time television.

And here's one for all the American war bloggers who believe that Blair is a reliable ally:

It is also fun to be in a place where our crowd is still in office.

What was also worrying was the globalist implications behind the left wing support for war. Here are three disjointed paragraphs:

We have only really had a chance to make them work for a little over a decade. The European Union is not what most people think and at least I hope it will be in five, 10 or 20 years; it is becoming. The United Nations is not what I hope it will be in five, 10 or 20 years. There are still people who vote in the United Nations based on the sort of old fashioned national self-interest views they held in the cold war or even long before, so that not every vote reflects the clear and present interests of the world and the direction we are going.

Yet the prospect for a truly global community of people working together in peace with shared responsibilities for a shared future was not institutionalised until a little less than 60 years ago with the creation of the United Nations and the issuance of the universal declaration of human rights. Such a community did not even become a possibility until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

Of course we have to stand against weapons of mass destruction but if we can we have to do it in the context of building the international institutions that in the end we will have to depend upon to guarantee the peace and security of the world and the human rights of all people everywhere.

Let's face it chaps, loyalty to New Labour has been a failure. It's time to stop worrying about what the Sun says and start bashing this government for its abject disregard of the national interest.

Diplomatic Tussles

Clinton's speech was a "mesmerising oration" according to the unbiased political correspondent of the Guardian, Patrick Wintour. From a quick scan, it appears that he emphasised action through the United Nations with a tough regime of weapons inspections but also sanctioned unilateral action, if necessary, because the Security Council was "was still guilty of taking decisions based on self-interest".

However, although Bush has obtained support from the House of Representatives, the UN Security Council remains out of his grasp. Both France and Russia favour the existing system of resolutions or a tougher version, as they have constructed a relationship with the Saddam regime that would fall apart if regime change were to occur. They also prefer the Security Council as a source of legitimation for their actions, when necessary, and pay lip-service to international law, without giving up the power necessary to provide the UN with teeth. However, this situation is inherently unstable and, as the actions in Kosovo demonstrated in 1999, the importance of the Security Council as a body for legalising and sanctioning military action, has started to decline and will decline further, if the American's ferocious resolution is not passed. France and Russia would then find that they have invested time and energy in an institution that sinks into irrelevence as the US starts to assert its hegemony.

The Sick Man of Europe

One of the problems with the wishlists of Euroscepticism is that those who consider the EU an eater of liberty tend to privilege certain possible outcomes because these complement their vision. Just as the Europhiles see a certain inevitability with "ever closer union", so some Eurosceptics prophesy that the EU will fall apart due to its currency scheme or end itself in an immolatory Ragnarok as a 21st century Soviet Union.

One of the more recent subjects taken up is the comparison of Germany and Japan, of rich nations slowly foundering against a deflationary iceberg. Hamish MacLeod gives a more realistic outcome: of slow growth and gradual reform over the next two to three years. A more radical discontinuity depends upon the growth of Germany's neighbours. If their growth is slow and unemployment in Germany rises to above five million, then a constituency for radical change may well develop.

Anti-Semtitism?

Is being critical of Israel, or support for Israel, the same as being anti-Semitic? An absurd allegation on the face of it but some people take it seriously.

Desperate Remedies

The Euro-fanatics are on the run. The Prime Minister has changed tack: no longer is the Euro vital to Britain's economic interests, it is instead integral to her political "destiny". Heseltine dutifully repeated this line on the Today programme this morning.

This is a major victory for the forces of reason & sanity. We have won the argument on the economy, & our opponents are giving up the attempt to scare the people into voting for the Euro on pain of poverty. Instead, they have fallen back on the old "inevitability" canard, dressed up with a little more honesty than we have hitherto seen about the essentially political nature of the whole European project. "Europe", they now tell us, is indispensable to peace. Never mind N.A.T.O., never mind nuclear weapons, never mind the overwhelming military superiority of the United States, never mind the enormous political will never to have another Continental war, which has so far driven European integration, but which surely would be enough by itself: it is the E.U. that has kept the peace these 50 years.

This transparent lie will be much easier to expose than their lies about the economy. That they should resort to it shows how desperate they are. We are winning. Let us press our advantage home.

Doubting Whittam Smith

The pundit speaks: I am all for European integration but I could have told you that the Euro won't work. Didn't you see me standing up and saying so. Well, it's Germany, you see. They could deflate (although they look like they already have - Ed). What they need is a solid bout of Keynesianism, more public spending, devaluation, the whole works, just like us in the 1960s. Maybe they should throw in some price and wage controls, just for the heck of it.

Stephen Pollard flagged this one up but he didn't warn of the Keystone Keynesianism attached to Whitters here. Rather nostaligic in its 70s feel, really. Thatchere never happened.