Airstrip One

Say something positive

Giscard D'Estaing appeared on British radio today and warned that the United Kingdom could be sidelined in Europe, if the referendum result rejected the European Constitution. D'Estaing speculated that the rejection of the European Constitution would propel integrationist elements on the Continent to pool sovereignty and create an avant-garde.

In the past, we have heard that such an integrationist drive would be constructed either within or without the present European structures. As Norman Davies, a long-standing historian of Eastern Europe has noted, the new Member States are likely to strengthen the 'Europe de patries' and undermine the suprastate that the Constitution was designed to construct:

Nonetheless, whatever the strains, the new entrants are certain to strengthen the concept of De Gaulle's "Europe des patries" as opposed to a centralised super-state. They are interested in making the Union more effective, more democratic and perhaps more federal. But they are not going to tolerate any diminution of their national identities. They have fought too hard and too long in defence of those identities to let them slip now. British people are proud of the way in which we fought in two world wars to preserve our way of life. But we are only dimly aware of the far more testing ordeals that central and eastern Europeans have faced from the likes of fascism, communism and many other tyrannies.

The old obstacles appear to be far less relevant after Blair's decision. Zapatero, at a recent meeting with Schroeder, signalled Spain's acceptance of the European Constitution in the 'European interest'. Poland has also acquiesced and withdrawn from a 'Thatcher' moment. The document will probably be finalised by June, agreed, and presented to the electorates.

Even when faced with huge obstacles, the politicians appear to have lost the flexibility required to adapt to their electorates' demand. In an age of diverse choices, they still view Europe as 'all or nothing' and present this on a platter to their voters. If they are unable to adapt the constitution in order to increase its chances of success, placing ideological purity above common sense, then their project is doomed to fail. If failure ensures Britain's withdrawal, then all to the good.

(23.25, 29th April 2004)

Scratching My Head in Disbelief

The temptation to write about Blair's momentous decision as it happened, with all its confusing twists and turns, was very strong. The lure of the pint proved even stronger. The delay was probably for the best since it is easier to separate political crowing from some grains of truth.

The first myth that has arisen is Blair's cave-in to public pressure for a referendum, as orchestrated by the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. This exaggerates their role and fundamentally ignores Blair's belief that he will do what is right, no matter what the public thinks. Nor is there a sufficient number of rebels on the backbenches to cause a bill on the Constitution more than a rough ride. Tuition fees are of more concern to Old Labour than a piece of paper they do not understand.

We can never know what passed through Blair's mind when he made this decision until memoirs and papers pass into the public domain years from now. There are some signposts that do clarify the choice of the referendum and what it says about the current state of this administration. We know that Blair had not made a firm moral or political decision on the European Constitution or the Euro, unlike the war in Iraq.

The issue of Europe has always been subordinated to domestic political concerns, a stance that ties Blair in with the historical relationship between the British political class and the European Union. More recent events cannot have endeared the European Union to Blair, since the Member States and integrating institutions, actively worked to undermine his attempts to internationalise the war effort before the Iraqi invasion. The war and its outcome may have predisposed Blair to reevaluate Britain's role in Europe with a more sceptical eye.

The political context within which Blair made this decision was his weakened reputation within the Labour party and his tendency to make policy through cabals. This was utilised by (we are told) Brown and Straw to persuade Blair that a referendum was the best method of defusing the political uncertainties surrounding the Constitution. Simon Heffer in the Daily Mail today pointed out parallels with the similar backroom decision decided by Thatcher, to join the Exchange rate mechanism, that only signposted her weakness and eventual downfall. Blair has found that his own cabinet divided over this decision. It has opened up European divisions that have gradually emerged over the last few years, as integration has run apace.

The referendum was not chosen to give the British people a say but as a tool to accentuate the divisions within Cabinet and increase the influence of a particular faction, whose members include Brown and Straw. Blair holds the ring in these battles and may have decided, whilst under political pressure, to give in and at the same time, cut the feet out from under Chirac. Perhaps the simplest of motives, revenge, explains this strange and spontaneous choice.

(23.09, 26th April 2004)

Not So Hot

One of the recent reports, issued by the British National Space Centre, concentrated upon the private-sector expolitation of space industries in the United Kingdom. They surveyed 222 companies, in order to provide a snapshot of these activities.

An article in the Grauniad represented the report as 'positive news', with increasing profits, turnover and employment. However, the report distinguished between "upstream" and "downstream" activities, which correspond to throwing things up into orbit (satellite manufacturing) as opposed to relying upon things already up there (telecommunications).

The British space industry is a service industry that is bolstered by niche manuafacturing, continuing the tradition of craft industries in this hi-tech era. However, these do not contribute to Britain's military or commercial exploitation of the high frontier. This counts as a strategic weakness.

(20.01, 25th April 2004)

Chills the Blood

One of the mysteries of the age is why are liberals, those soft fluffy people who want to free terrorists and think that shooting burglars is wrong, worship at the altar of the EU? Here's another example of the EU's less than liberal attitudes. Just read it, but ten hours in custody without a lawyer? Strewth.

Will Russia join OPEC?

The Russian Federation is undergoing a strong period of flux as the state security apparatus (known as the siloviki) tightens its grip on the 'managed democracy' and domesticates the oligarchs. Russian economic growth is based on primary commodities, oil and gas, with some estimates stating that this amounts to a fifth of the economy.

A recent article in the Moscow Times shows that the Russian state is waking up to the power that oil can give, especially in the aftermath of the Iraqi war. Geopolitically, Russia is looking to become a swing state for energy prices, similar to the role that Saudi Arabia play snow within OPEC. In order to maintain stability in the oil market, a rapprochament is taking place between the third Rome and the cartel.

But what is emerging as a sort of "Putin Doctrine" doesn't stop there. It seems to envision Russia as the pivot around which the global oil market revolves, the power broker that can tip the balance between OPEC and the United States. And it seems to call for the rapid international expansion of patriotic companies -- both state-owned and private, energy and nonenergy.

This has had implications for the emerging Russian oil majors that now work for Putin, directing their infrastructure projects and investments:

Many analysts expect OPEC to come under increasing pressure over the next few years as instability in the Middle East grows and individual members such as Venezuela and Nigeria are pressured into leaving.

So, by reducing export growth, Russia could help the cartel survive, said Alfa Bank chief strategist Chris Weafer, a former adviser to OPEC who retains close ties to the organization.

What's more, Weafer said, by deliberately slowing down exports over the next few years, "the entire Arab world will see Russia as a significant ally and Russia's political influence in the Arab world will increase."

With huge resources, Russia is attempting to maximise its influence in commodity markets, especially energy. With our declining resources of oil and gas, the United Kingdom may be prudent in seeking non-OPEC sources of energy, alongside the United States. Their rival (and possible future partner?) in this endeavour is China.

The rest of Europe will be heavily dependent on the Middle East and Russia. Alleviation of their plight will come through furthering economic ties with the Russian sphere of influence and the Arab states. Energy security is one concern pushing Europe and the United States apart. Indeed, France, with its nuclear power stations may have more freedom to manoevre than its continental counterparts - a counter argument to those who accuse it of Arabist appeasement.

(20.19, 20th April 2004)