I will begin by saying that this is the BBC choice of title - not mine.....

Britain's PM made some interesting and compelling comments today about the flood of anti-Americanism in Europe and the potential danger of indulging in this attitude over the long run.

His comments are quite pragmatic and do not reflect a sentimental view - rather, he is simply saying that anti-Americanism is not conducive to dealing with global issues.

I would imagine it is partly in response to the surprisingly crude - and ill-timed - remarks made by David Cameron on September 11th. The strong anti-American tone of the speech, given on the 5th anniversary of September 11th, made it clear that future UK policy under him will mean moving away from the US.

This is the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5344202.stm and here are a few of Blair's comments:

It seems that we really are moving into a new pattern of relationships with other nations, including allies. It doesn't necessarily mean the end of an alliance - the friendship with Britain is probably the oldest in the world - but certainly it means a dramatic change. Certainly Cameron's choice of 9/11 ( a rather strange and tastless examnple of timing) to make his statement was a clear indication that it the UK/US relationship is altered.

His argument is the ordinary straw- man, and it deliberately targets opposition of the war as lacking of morals and values. No doubt you've heard that kind of argument before from Bush.

They start with saying - "some say" - and suggest how they are reasonable and measured in comparison. But anyone can, as many does, point out that Blair has no monopoly on values. And if he believes a war on Iraq for no good reason is proof of having a steady moral compass, then that is his problem, not anyone else's. For instance, the suggestion that "the war on terror" can take many forms is particularly bad. In this argument, Blair obviously embraces the concept that even if you disagree about the methods used, you can still support the war on terror in some specific ways. And therefore, that opposing it in other specific ways, and stating it as a political point, will mean you oppose the war on terror altogether.

Now, regardless of your actual views, such an argument is tailored to lend not support to the US, but total and servile support for anything they do, as well as anything that the "war on terror" is said to include. And this is a childish argument, only tailored to reinforce the idea that if you oppose the US in any particular, any particular at all, you cannot support the US, or for that matter liberty, freedom and any other idea that the US once represented.

But I agree, Blair's comments are pragmatic - he thinks a relationship with the US is important to control and contain terrorism. He thinks, as does most in Britain I'm sure, that it is in the best interest of Britain to have a good relationship with the US. And he believes that a unified front against extremism is important to defeat terrorism. And in that respect, his comments make complete sense - his position can not be seen to be defeated and resigned, because it would be defeat of the unified front. He cannot go back on the war, because it would be detrimental to the war on terror as a whole.

And frankly, out of simple courtesy (or out of fear for being instantly overrun by muslim fanatics, for some) this is not pushed down Blair's throat at every possible opportunity. But now he has declared his exit, his personality- oriented half- way totalitarian way of governing is ended, and there will be... at least an opportunity to shift this when the time comes.

But what this means for the relationship with the US is an interesting question. I do not think Cameron will stand up to the US if it's either "with us or against us", but the commons will not go along with it if it involves something similar to Iraq. You can for instance study how the Lebanon- incident was handled, and then judge the reaction by the parliament for yourself.

And this is not sudden at all - after Iraq, there was tremendous disappointment over how Blair decieved the parliament on the "second resolution", and no such trust is going to be given to the prime minister again in a very, very long time. And unlike in the US, giving the leaders that kind of leeway is not as easy, for the simple reason that all ability to question whether what the leaders are doing corresponds in any way to what they're saying, is not entirely gone, while the media is not completily overrun by partisans.

This entire thing has had a real impact on the way british politics works, though. And there has been much speculation about whether the politicians may continue on a populistic streak on foreign policy when it comes to the relationship with the US - and that Cameron will - as he has so far done - aim to focus on his disagreements with the US in the short term. And perhaps do so in order to have legitimacy when supporting the US in the long run. This will no doubt be more difficult when tried in practice if he comes to power, though. But still, as some say - british politics just turned out to become interesting again, after the lull of Blair has passed.. or something like that.

So what it means in specifics - how important will britain be for the US for.. at least the next couple of years - who knows? A number of other governments have been completily abandoned for not supporting the US unquestioningly, or have otherwise been subject to smear- campaigns or deliberate off- message threats - the rest are subject of Cheney's "we do not speak to evil"- doctrine.

I.e, as a policy, it would be difficult for the Bush- administration to lose yet another "ally". In practice, though - and I say this with much more worry than I can put down in words - as long as we're not going to have Iraq all over again in Iran and Syria, together with a total departure from any international law and treaty - the relationship with Europe as a whole will be very good. Because the current front is not based on resentment towards the US, but opposition to the rhetoric. In france, in Germany, hell, even in Iran and China, the opposition is not to jeans and muscle- cars, but to fucking Monkey- Boy in the White House and his goons in the US "diplomatic" corps. As any US diplomat who are not sent to dictate terms can tell you.

And to be entirely specific - the opposition is usually instant when it's discovered that the people you are dealing with do not have a grasp of reality that others at least try to have, but are sentimentalists who believe that it's the obligation of those in power to dictate reality, that then in turn is planned upon. I.e, the solution is always to see fantastic, even delusional casual chains into the future, and then plan as if those chains must happen.

And presto - you have only leaders like Michael Howard and Tony Blair as your trusted allies. Any other allies will not be trusted in the same way, as you have no doubt seen from the way the Bush- administration treats those who are critical, and question their methods, if not their goals altogether.


(...phew.)

Great points muspell!

Yes, classic case of shoot the messenger.

The problem is not 'anti-Americanism' - the issue is 'anti-American-policy'.

But it is so much easier to dismiss critics of US policy as "anti-American" rather than to engage the issue that is driving all the anger.

The anger comes from the frustration of witnessing US policy in action (and steadfast Blair support for same).

[quote=muspell;809605] Well, I certainly do understand your point here - but I think the point that the PM was making in this speech was to warn Europeans against the consequences of confusing opposition to the war in Iraq with a general anti-Americanism. It's easy to move from dislike of American policy to opposing all Americans policy simply because it is American, and even disliking Americans as people. That was his pont here.

Yes, I do see your point here. There must be nuance, and the Bush administration is not adept at nuance...

But surely there are no governments in Europe that are servile to the US! Quite the opposite. It is trendy now to openly oppose and insult the US - quite the opposite of servile.

Yes, I think that's a good analysis. However, I'm not sure that I would agree that most people in Britain care about having a good relationship with the US as their current view of Americans is very negative.

You think he is half-totalitarian?!

I think the idea that Britain was a victim of the US in all of this is false ("you're with us or against us"). The Brits were involved from the beginning, and the idea that Britain was abused by the US is nonsense.

Cameron's speech was a disappointment and a surprise for two reasons: partly because of the content, but mostly because of the terrible - and tasteless -timing and place of the speech. There was no need for Cameron to "talk tough" about the US - and make it clear that he opposes the US - on the 5th anniversary of 9/11, at an event intended as a tribute to the dead.

If he wants to impress his followers, he should have chosen another day and another event - ANY other day and event. The poor timing of it was, to be honest, unbelievable. It received a lot of media coverage here in the US, and the impression left by Cameron was quite negative as a result.

Even the New York Times - the voice of the establishment left in the US - ran a front page story on his comments, expressing surprise at the tone and content, and including Cameron's warning to the American ambassador before the speech regarding the content.


Which governments abadoned the US?

As for Britain's importance - there will always be a relationship between the US and Britain, even if only for economic importance and shared history. But when seventy or eighty percent of the people of Britain are anti-American, obviously the realtionship cannot be what it was.

Well, I don't know about that - there is a lot of hatred out there (just look at this forum). To blame it all on "monkey boy" is extreme (and that is NOT a defense of Bush - just a comment). How do you see relationships with Europe as being "very good"?


Yes, I would agree.

*chuckle*

Thanks for responding. I posted this and no one responded - so I stopped checking...

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Of course. If you dare to question any American policy that the government takes then you must hate the country itself. It's so logical.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

What are you talking about? This has no relation to the topic...

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Thankfully America doesnt care what Europe thinks of us so its humbling to live in a more civilized nation whose politicians dont win votes by bashing Europe.

Well, so maybe both Bush and his followers have the same bad idea at some point. And it should be unproblematic to criticize a bad idea, since it's the idea I'm criticizing, and not the person who happened to say it.

It doesn't seem to me to be a point worth devoting an entire speech to. And I'm quite confident it wasn't.
Only when it's suddenly convinient and something needs to be excused, yes.
Well, that's what the argument is designed to produce - categorical oppostion. But this.. I think.. is one of the great myths both the war- supporters and the more extreme anti- war side are a bit keen on promoting. While.. it's not, in a real sense, true. Most of us have better things to do than hate the US. Of course.. some of us might enjoy it a bit too much when the US must come crawling back to the UN, to get a resolution to "legitimize" their presence, in Iraq, to get their rebuilding- efforts in order - so they would be able to sell the oil from Iraq without being accused of theft, or smuggling, etc.

But to some extent, it has been perfectly possible to separate the idea of support for faery- tales with the actual viability of believing in them, which spared at least us of much of the obvious problems with declaring, largely, that we don't support the war on terror. While still making it possible to at least support some projects, although things are unraveling badly nowadays.. It also was the reason why we supported the UN- "track" so clearly - not to oppose the US - but to go to war for a real reason if it actually was necessary, with support and a plan. Not for shared sentiment about 911, not for solidarity with Iraqi expatriates, not for hyped up threats, not for great belief in American Supremacy and the allmighty Dollar - all of which to a lesser or greater degree played some role in the public debate - but for actual demonstrably justified reasons.

Of course, the trust we put in the US to present a real case, and then respect the Security Council was utterly misplaced. And that, Tim, is not going to be forgotten in a hurry. And as I said in the other post - the opposition to "cowboy diplomacy", substantively is opposition to the categorical policies that leave no wiggle- room for actual reality to seep in once in a while. And I tell you this, so you can understand that what I'm talking about is real disappointment with how the US has conducted itself as a country.

And, you know, I'm setting the bar extremely low.
No, not really. The ones coming over here exploiting people's attempts at diplomacy, they can expect to be branded as the "typical" american idiot - senseless, vindictive and petty, utterly without self- respect, and without ability to be critical of themselves, or recieve criticism in any form. Because it's justified. Take Condoleezza Rice - you have the distinct impression that she can be knocked over and lethally injured with a feather, and you're not quite certain what exactly she is promoting as an official - and you cannot quite extract the policies she's promoting from some undefined abstract called "american values".

Sometimes it seems to me they're saying: "help us! We're held hostage and forced to defend the Bush- administration no matter what! And we don't know what we're really supposed to be finding support for! Help, help!".

Of course, a diplomat will then in response either serve a series of platitudes in return, and simply make it clear that no unconditional support will be given. Or that that support will be given as far as national interests allow it, and that will be the end of it (unless your country has a vulnerable economy and wants economic aid and favours).

But at the same time this all leaves the impression that the american public support these people because they believe in their representatives' convictions (instead of the values they usually say they stand for). And that reflects badly on you as a whole.
Yeah. The Prime Minister wields a tremendous amount of power, you know. And when you set a categorical agenda without concern for the implementations of those policies - then you create the environment where - as the speech you linked to prove so extremely well - all open criticism is betrayal of the platform and the leadership, and not solidarity for the progress of the country, for instance.
I didn't say the US decieved them. /Blair/ was on board very early, of course. But the Commons was not committed to support without the "second resolution", and had to be given a real excuse to look the other way. (And this is what I'm referring to when ripping the personality- driven politics of Blair's government, when connecting himself and the Labour leadership to their Grand Plan, making it impossible to criticize some elements without betraying the party, and so on... I'm sure something similar happens in the US now between Bush and the republicans..?)
lol. Right. He should've been using the emotional impact to defend an arbitrary policy to go to war instead, of course. But it was a predictable speech that made clear there were no hidden ties between american sensitivities and political decisions. A bit of genuine positioning, of course. And suggesting, while stating the actual point about disagreements politely in the speech, that it's obvious he is not the same as Tony Blair. Just as opportunistic, of course, but still.
Well, there's just about everyone else except the Czech republic, isn't it .. At least we've been all but blacklisted after the embassy- stuff, the Israel- boycott and the lack of faithful adoption of anti- terror laws. Add in some oil- deals with Iran, and our little kingdom is just about supporting terror.

Seriously, though - no official communications or relations really exist between the state- departments right now. And the last we heard were the formal threats if the government's position on Israel would change. After that, nothing much else.
Compared to the past few years with Blair, or when Thatcher was in power... no, I think you're right. This global war on many- headed trolls.. I mean terror.. is going to take some time to get over, too.
Because the opposition to the US (or so I seem to have the impression is the case) is mostly the despair over the kind of utterly moronic things we're being told.. on the TV, in speeches, through those in official capacity. Which is, essentially: shut up and do as we say, and help wipe our asses while being grateful, or else you're with the terrorists. And that's the ones not simply raving on inconsistently about saving the world from evil. And I'm not exaggerating, either. There's a lot of.. reactionary and, well, insane things being done on the part of lawmakers in the US, and with some in the state- department - and that simply reflects badly on you, as I said. Failing to pick up on it as well is worse, of course. And, sort of excusing positively mad rhetoric as being "just for external consumption", or "to scare the terrorists" isn't much better, when we know what the results of those policies really are, and what they're used to promote or defend.

And, you know, it may take a while for some to think so badly of others, but most take notice when americans - who otherwise do not seem to be that bad - deliberately buy into their hype to excuse themselves from actual criticism.

And all these things - torture, geneva conventions, justice, international law, extraditions, blatant lies and smears for apparently no good reason at all but to compound the disaster into an even larger one in the future.. these things pile up, until you decide that either the US generally do not see the problem with it, or that people are so uninterested they don't care.

And what do we hear from Washington? Or, what is it we're actually reacting to? The final nail in the coffin for me at least was when the official line from Washington turned into how the US suddenly discovered Terrorism, and wanted us to embrace this brand new concept, and support /their/ project in Afghanistan to get rid of it. You know, since the US helped us so much when it really mattered, when the suspiciously similar plan, only with the specifics filled in, already was in place, back in 2001. Although we lacked the money at the time, in spite of a lot of pledges and talk about democracy and so on from certain countries. Of course, the plan still lacks money, and now comes with an undefined footnote obliging the committment of troops and logistical support for indefinite military operations against "evil" in the Southern regions before rebuilding can start.

So you know, I don't think using the pentagon, or the military branch, for "diplomacy" is such a good idea in light of that. Or at least not as a substitute for any sane approach to some real relations. Because this is the kind of thing they're producing.

And this is the political front, see? The front we actually have to deal with. This is the kind of thing you refer to when you say "well, they must have a plan!". And as Blair so conveniently insists, and as Bush insists - we're not really opposed to what the US is doing, in any case - oh, no - we're opposed to the US doing it. Even if the US claims they're a super- power and can dictate the world and do anything, even when it defies all kinds of logic, reason or remotely possible causality - it's still just anti- americanism to point that out. Worse, it makes the Great Mission more likely to fail to talk about it. And.. then you do get a poor taste in your mouth. Because supporting it in any form means promoting some global agenda that noone seriously can really think would work, and much less has any idea of what means in practice.

Does any of this mean I hate americans, though? To the extent that you elected these bastards - twice - on the issue of terror and security under the GWOT, even after the Iraq- business - yes, I think that was pretty bad. I blame many of the problems we're having right now on those slow and ignorant enough not to see where this was going, and who did not react when it mattered. To those who couldn't find it in them to even say - "why don't I have this information?" And instead went:"well, I trust the Government to decide for me, because that makes me feel safe". Really, what kind of american tradition is that?

So to round off, I still oppose the policies and the methods because I believe they are simply insane megalomania, and because they demonstrably cause the deaths of untold thousands of people by sheer incompetent stupidity. Not just because it's the US doing it.

And please understand that what we have here is a pretty unique situation, where there basically is no real diplomacy going on. And there hasn't been any for years. So we're not simply talking about using political pressure to accomplish some sort of goal - in general the rhetoric you hear actually is justification for why there is no contact, etc. Completily straight forward. As they say - they're somehow "rewarding" countries with talks if they decide to agree with doing whatever the US says. And.. normally there's a lot of latitude for that kind of talk when there's at least some discussion going on somewhere. But there just isn't any. I mean, really, this kind of behavior is just.. psychotic.

Anti-Americanism may be madness, but as Blair has been very slow to learn, 'pro-Americanism' can be electoral suicide for non-American politicians.

GW Bush just didn't deliver and that is very hard to defend when you are the leader of a country with no influence. Blair signed on the dotted line (with British blood) and gets nothing for his troubles.

Poor Blair, he stood on principles, but sold his soul to Bush and Bush hung him out to dry. I can't say I feel sorry for Blair making such a large political blunder. He should have seen it coming when the American Administration shot down every Blair rationale for the justification of invading Iraq back in 2001/02.

As it stands now, to have a 'pro-American' policy is madness.

So anti-Americanism is the trendy way to go.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

[quote=muspell;831568] *chuckle*

i don't know about that - after reading just a few posts on this forum.


*smile*

It's interesting - I actually agree with much of what you say, but the tone is so arrogant and condescending that it does produce an irritated response in me.


Typical American idiot. Well you certainly don't hesitate to use blunt insults!


She is not my favorite either.

This is precisely where the line between opposition to American policy and anti-Americanism disappears.



This is just nonsense. You know what I am talking about. That event was not about any policy. It was a tribute to the dead. He was trying to prove hos anti-Americanism and impress people. It was obnoxious.


That was my point. The new anti-Americanism in Britain will produce long lasting results. It is quite new, and there is no way to know what the results will be.

This is even worse than I expected. Depressing indeed.

Depressing indeed - there is quite a bit of hysteria in your comments. Once again, I actually agree with you on many of the policy issues, but the criticism and the ridicule are over-the-top.

Hmmm...your view of the world seems to indicate that no one else is responsible for any problems at all.

So you do have feelings of hatred? Considering your views, it does make sense. But why, then, are you here on the forum talking with people you hate?

Psychotic...well, there doesn't seem to be much more to say.

I think you are taking policies you oppose and using them to condemn an entire country - and that is going much too far. I know many people agree with you, and there doesn't seem to be any room for dialogue at all.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1