Letter from London

To: Retort
From: the 'O God, please not Alistair Cooke' Department

Here is the first occasional 'Letter 
from London', this by ***. He illuminates Blair's surplus enthusiasm for 
the crusade.


LETTER FROM LONDON
It appears that in some quarters outside these islands there is puzzlement
at the enthusiastic support by Prime Minister Blair for the military actions
initiated by President Bush. Leaving aside the question of legitimate
horror at the attacks of September 11th, which was felt everywhere and not
just in the United Kingdom, there are two overlapping clusters of concern
which help explain the difference in response of the British government and
that of the other European states.

Among the dominant figures in English politics, whether Labour or
Conservative, and much of cultural life there is a shared, albeit diffuse
and not always openly expressed view that British prominence in financial
and other service industries and in the 'culture industries' depends on the
continuing cultivation of close links with the United States. The
compensation, if you like, for the passing of the British Empire is that
thanks to a shared language (more or less) and shared culture (somewhat 
more  or less) with the subsequent dominant power Britain can continue 'to 
punch above its weight'. The latter is a favourite phrase of London 
journalists
when they complacently take stock of their country's place in the world.
But this complacency inevitably comes with a touch of hysteria. Are we
close enough, are we paying enough attention to how things are being done
'over there'? (This anxiety as to the overall picture can come quite easily
paired with criticism of specific elements of US policy - dependence has to
be balanced by some expression of superiority.) It's not surprising, then,
that British governments have proved the most vociferous and sweeping, at
least in Western Europe, in their attempts to ensure maximum 'freedom of the
market'. And, whether Conservative or Labour they continue to insist on the
efficacy of the mantras of 'privatisation', flexibilisation', etc. even when
faced by declining standards in health care and declining efficiency in
public transport. There is, thus, an established disposition to go along
with the 'big boy' in the schoolyard. One element specific to Blair,
however, which separates him from the average British citizen, but at a
rhetorical level links him to currents in the United States, is his
evangelical Christianity ('muscular' Christianity is a good, older term for
his beliefs): he can talk about 'good' and 'evil' in the social and
political sphere with conviction and seemingly without embarrassment. It's
a talent that most contemporary European politicians lack.

Yes, what about Europe, you might say. Isn't Britain a member of the
European Union? Doesn't that loosen British links to the United States?
Well, it certainly hasn't done so until now, and indeed one can see that the
current British position within Europe has, in fact, exacerbated that
Blairite enthusiasm for the 'war against terrorism'. There are two linked
aspects to this. First, Britain is not yet part of the emerging
Euro-currency zone. This is a limitation on Britain's role in the European
Union. Support for the US in the current 'war' is, also, meant to achieve
two things. Internally to help build up a momentum of support, through
British participation in a just (and presumably victorious) war, for Blair,
which will allow the new Labour government to carry a referendum in favour
of joining the Euro Zone. At present a clear majority of the electorate is
against. Externally (aside from demonstrating loyalty to the US) it is
meant to emphasise to the other European nations, that Britain's leading
role is something they cannot do without. Britain has the troops and planes
at its disposal to make a real contribution to a military campaign, its
Prime Minister has the ear of the US president - thus putting the UK in an
even better position post-Euro Zone entry.

So, is it paying off for Blair? It's probably too early to say, but there
are some worrying signs. A triumphant land peace-keeping operation
involving 1,000's of British troops (photo opportunities with our boys in
the Hindu Kush) seems very much off the cards at the moment. And whatever
the commitment of outside forces in Afghanistan once the fighting stops
(sort of) it's clear that the major winner of the war (aside from the United
States) is going to be Russia. What new conflicts and constellations that
produces, particularly if and when the Saudi monarchy collapses will be
interesting to see, but I doubt if Tony Blair will be able to draw much
comfort from them. He'll be stuck, willingly or unwillingly, as the
cheerleader of a US policy of a never-ending war on terrorism, constantly
defining who is on 'our' side, a permanent disciplinary instrument, of
international policing as instant overwhelming retribution.
If we can be certain of thing, then this, that the failure of the Bush
administration to bring pressure on the Sharon government in Israel to make
any serious steps towards securing peace with the Palestinians will produce
more terrorists. Kandahar is about to fall, Bin Laden (they say) is
trapped, so no more need to worry about the Islamic states being on board
the coalition against terrorism, that was a mere short-lived tactic. In the
19th century there was gunboat diplomacy, now we have helicopter gunship
diplomacy. Not much room for optimism, with the added piquancy that the
runway in Gaza being dug up by Israeli bulldozers with the blessing of Bush
and Powell was paid for by the taxpayers of the European Union.

***