Gordon Brown goes global
In Chicago in 1999, Tony Blair spoke of developing a new doctrine of "humanitarian interventionism". Tonight, in London, his successor, Gordon Brown, threw that to one side and replaced it with "hard-headed internationalism".
Which is in part the same thing, and in part, not the same at all. Like Blair, Brown accepts the new UN doctrine of a "responsibility to protect". If people are at risk of genocide, never mind if the threat comes from their own government, the rest of the world has a duty to intervene.
But to Brown, sending in the troops isn't enough. Kosovo and Sierra Leone may have looked like triumphs for the Blair doctrine, but he sees life more in shades of grey than in the stark Blairite contrasts of right and wrong.
So tonight, we heard of the need for "a new framework to assist reconstruction". Traditional emergency aid and peacekeeping must be combined with stabilisation, reconstruction and development. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq, the Prime Minister seemed to be saying. How much better might we have done if we'd paid more attention there to reconstruction and development, as well as to a quick military victory?
The Brown vision of what "hard-headed internationalism" means goes like this:
"I propose that in future, Security Council peacekeeping resolutions and UN Envoys should make stabilisation, reconstruction and development an equal priority; that the international community should be ready to act with a standby civilian force including police and judiciary who can be deployed to rebuild civic societies; and that to repair damaged economies we sponsor local economic development agencies ---- in each area the international community able to offer a practical route map from failure to stability."
Brown believes in international cooperation - "The new frontier," he said tonight, "is that there is no frontier." And yes, he also believes in that good old special relationship with Washington. "I have no truck with anti-Americanism in Britain or elsewhere in Europe and I believe that our ties with America - founded on values we share - constitute our most important bilateral relationship."
Tonight was Gordon Brown trying to map out a global vision. He had tough words for Iran - although not a hint of a threat of military action - and equally tough words for President Musharraf of Pakistan. And what he said about international terrorism could equally have been said by George W Bush or Tony Blair: "International efforts against terrorism are not a short-term struggle where we get by through ad-hoc improvisation: this is a generational challenge. Global terrorist networks demand a global response."
In a nutshell: I'm not a naïve softie, nor am I a go-it-alone cowboy. And just to make sure that none of us got the wrong idea, there were warm words for both Bush and Blair in the passage about searching for a way to make progress in the Middle East. They used to say that Gordon Brown doesn't do foreign; he did tonight.
The full text of his speech is
"You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination-Next stop The Twilight Zone."
Back to the real world;
"A new UN doctrine of a "responsibility to protect." Tell me about Darfur and China's veto at the Security Council. Blah blah blah
"Kosovo and Sierra Leone may have looked liked triumphs for the Blair Doctrine...." I don't know about Sierra Leone but Kosovo was a triumph for 1-800-USA-HELP when that phone line was still active. There was no UN doctrine, Russia would have vetoed it in the Security Council without doubt. It was all NATO could do to get Greece to go along kicking and screaming. And what a dumb military policy, every target had to get pre-approval by every NATO member government. What a way to run a war. I don't even know why the US stays in NATO, what does America need it for. BTW, next time someone calls 1-800-USA-HELP they are likely to get a recorded message saying; "this number has been permanently disconnected and there is no forwarding number."
"(Brown)...sees life more in shades of gray" Translated into English, that means Brown would have said OK to the invasion of Iraq but sent no troops. I wonder if he would have seen the Battle of London in shades of gray too. Blah blah blah.
"A new framework to assist reconstruction." What happened to all that relief that was supposed to go to victims of the tsunami? Last figures I saw was on ´óÏó´«Ã½ maybe a year ago. Blowhard Europe volunteered vast sums and chided the US for not doing the same within the first day or two until American ships got there and had a chance to look around at what had to be done. Last figures I saw showed each of the generous European countries had sent around $1 million while the US government aid was around $69 million, short of the $400 million pledged but there may have been reasons such as the individual economies being unable to accept aid faster than a certain rate. And then there was the unknown private American contributions unmatched by comparable charity by anyone else as always. Blah blah blah.
"I propose that in the future..." And just how will he get the cooperation of Russia and China? The Africans are drowning in weapons and have armies of rebels and soldiers to fight them but when it comes to sending a modest force of even 10 or 20 thousand to go anywhere on their own continent they can't manage it. And they will not even give token verbal cooperation over Zimbabwe. Blah blah blah.
"Brown believes in international cooperation." Why do I feel a sudden urge as an American to put my hands in my pockets and clutch tight to my money? Blah blah blah.
"I have no truck with anti-Americanism." Well isn't it nice to know someone in Western Europe feels they shouldn't any longer bite the hand that fed them.
"he believes in that good old special relationship" I am still at a loss to understand what special relationship Britain thinks it has with the United States. This really is the twilight zone. Here's a thumbnail of 200+ years of American history with Britain;
What was America's history with Britain? Two hundred and thirty years ago Americans some of whose ancestors came from Britain as religious outcasts, indentured servants, inmates of debtors prisons revolted and threw Britain out. They fought another war over Britain capturing American seamen claiming they were British subjects. The British Army burned down Washington DC including the White House. Britain sided with the South in the Civil War because it felt a divided America would be to its benefit. The US saved Britain from complete defeat in two world wars and shielded it from a third while supporting its little tiff with Argentina over a few islands in the middle of nowhere in the South Atlantic more populated by sheep than people. Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, the US helped rebuild Britain after the war and loaned it a great deal of money at very low interest rates. Britain paid the loan off around a year ago, more than sixty years after the war was over. Seems to me Britain is not America's poodle, it's its child tugging at its apron strings. Sometimes when you hear some off the wall remark about England becoming an American state it seems like the mother country wants to crawl into its child's womb.
"He had tough words for Iran." Hahahahaha. Europe has had tough words for Iran for over three years and how has Iran reacted? Cowered in terror? No it captured 15 of its royal marines in Iraqi waters and held them captive making a media circus out of them while Britain played possum. The only tough words Iran will react to are America's when it says surrender your nuclear program immediately or you'll be destroyed tomorrow. Maybe they'll remember what happened when Saddam Hussein didn't take up that offer. As for what Brown and Europe have to say, Blah blah blah.
"The new frontier is that there is no frontier." Well maybe for Britain when it joined the EU, agreed to Maastrict, and built the Chunnel but the US still has borders with Mexico and Canada even if the Bush Administration doesn't seem intent on defending them.
So what do we get from Europe besides talk, talk, and more useless talk? We get a visit from Winkin' Blinkin' and Nod to speak in our ear and be sure we hear them. We hear them alright but we are not listening.
Complain about this postRe Mark
I think the point of Brown's speech was to argue that we need international cooperation more than ever, and that we need a change in our mindsets if we are to work more effectively together. It's pretty easy to talk about the failures and difficulties - we all know them - it's also easy (and tempting) to cite a long litany of criticisms of other countries. That way we remain locked in the isolated perspective of nation states - as if that was the most important lens to see through, as if that is going to be effective in terms of dealing with collective challenges (all well known - but basically poverty, conflict and environmental degradation.) We can either wallow in pessimism and irritation with each other - or we can look to the lessons learned when countries have worked together successfully - and build on that.
Complain about this postFrancis #2
Remember what happened the last time the US cooperated with Europe, in fact with Britain? The US was set in September 2002 to invade Iraq. It had a vast army of troops in Kuwait ready to go. But to cover Tony Blair with his domestic political constituency, the US waded through a long process to get one more UN resolution through the Security Council it didn't need. It was a disaster. Saddam Hussein had plenty of time to move his chemical and biological weapons the entire world believed he had into hiding, probably in Syria while the French and Germans whipped up anti-American sentiment all over the world in their futile effort to protect the billions in illegal profits from circumventing the UN sanctions their own wealthiest citizens and those of Russia and China were making.
If you are an American, you don't get it. We don't need Europe or anyone else. Until our foolish alliances, we lived fine without them. There is nothing they can do of benefit to us and their demise is all but certain. The only cooperation they will get from the US is a further sinking dollar making their goods unmarketable in the US and other dollar linked economies, war with Iran which will push the price of oil to the moon, and further American investment in China undercutting whatever markets they have left anywhere else while giving China further reason to scarf up all of the worlds available raw materials. They are doomed and now they see it. That's why they sent the three stooges, to beg for help. I for one will be only too glad to throw them an anchor or two.
Complain about this postI finally got around to listening to the full speech this afternoon, and I must say I was quite impressed. If you take the old international relations school of realism, and soften it with such concerns as human rights and the environment which realism normally turns up its nose at, I think you make realism more -- realistic. What it does is to add a human element. Condoleeza Rice did this a number of years ago with an article in The Telegraph. I have been nursing ideas such as this from my school days fifteen years or so ago, but I was never in a position to do anything about them. I was a radical many years ago, but with age and a little humility it is possible to be a liberal, humanistic realist. The main error Rice and those like her make is to think you can use force to put your ideas into effect, and that policies can be implemented unilaterally.
Of course Brown's approach is not perfect, and there will have to be a wide dialogue over time with all the interested parties, with a great deal of thought and study accompanying the talk, but if it is all done constructively it can work. We don't want the world going to hell out of egotism and self-interest, with a dash of laziness thrown in.
Complain about this postDear Sirs,
unaccoustomed as I am in these matters of blogging I cannot help but feel stimulated by this extraordinary medium, if medium is the right word.
Many thanks therefore to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for their extensive work in providing this facility in addition to all the public Radio and TV channels.
I have taken the opportunity to draw attention to the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Website with all the blogs to the equivalent German stations who on all accounts are still in the Middle Ages as far as this facility is concerned.
Courtesy of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ I have read the two speaches and in my humble opinion as a European, who sees the EU as a growing village rather than the proverbial house, I can agree with both of them. The use of the word "model"
by the foreign secretary I found appropiate that people should be reminded of this idea. The fitter the model "Europe" gets the more other people around the world will align with their neighbours and engage in similar ventures with the required determination. Excessive selfcentredness in some parts of this our EU has provided challenges over the years. But the very determination to meet them and thus progress will again encourage others with their neighbours.
We do owe our American friends a great debt of gratitude, even if we do not always agree with them. They have taken on so much responsability over the years that one cannot but feel that it might be wearing them out before long. Our model, imperfect as it is, may
be a project for others to learn from but at the sharp end of conflicts there is much more to be done by Europeans. On this point american criticism is wholy appropiate.
Criticism levelled at Americans for their exit strategies or luck of the same has certainly changed my life when they as well as Britain handed Germany over to the Germans far too soon for many of us. It meant that I had to grow up in post war "Nazy Germany". Not long after the war Winston Churchill had spoken of a European State for the future, how much we would have liked him to implement his vision there and then, with Britain at the head. But then there were his other famous words: "events dear boy, events... . Lets wish Gordon Brown is endowed with more fortune in his plans for the future, although "events" sofar have not favoured him.
Jürgen Hochheimer, Prague "European villager".
Complain about this postI knew it wasn't going to be to long before the Brits started grooming another to be Bushs "lapdog". Browns kind words for Blair and Bush shows this guys as clueless as their last.
Complain about this post