Posts Tagged Under ‘The UK’

Politics Bullet Pointz

• I’m not sure why it is that Nicolas Sarkozy seems to have been anointed as the front-runner by all the commentary I’ve read, but they were right about dude, as he won a pretty commanding victory, 53% to 47%. I think a lot of the positive coverage has to do with commentary peeps simply being tired of Chirac and his administration’s predictably boring obstinacy. Still, for all the press, I think the following are true:

  1. You might see France stop automatically siding vocally with Russia and China at the Security Council like they have in the past few years, but that’s about it for change. Sarko is an admirer of the U.S., but what really is going to be different for French action on the world stage? He’s hardly going to jump into the Iraq debacle now, much less even express support for it. And nobody’s going to risk Bush contamination: hell, America is 68% against the man at this point, much less the French public.

  2. Still, Franco-American relations will likely improve, and it’s about time. We need the two nations to come together for the sake of the global Spaghetti-Os community.

  I’m also annoyed with everyone tip-toeing around the identity of the rioters. Were they angry Muslim banlieu residents, or were they disaffected left-wing students? Maybe a blend? With French rioting, you really never know, so let’s quit the vagaries and get some 5Ws up in this piece.

• Tony Blair = Lyndon Johnson. Think about it: both rode large waves of popular support for a domestic agenda that had so much promise to shift the political culture of the nation, only to be dragged down by what they saw as strategically and politically necessary involvement in a misguided foreign war when, in reality, a strong stand by either one could have averted the ensuing chaos. Both watched as their efforts slowly crumbled, but each was forced to wear a positive face, even as it was obvious that underneath, each knew just how badly things were going. (This is where the Bush / LBJ parallel ends.) Both left before their time, and ultimately endured a downtrodden exit from the world stage.

  Who says history doesn’t mean anything?

• If he cares at all about the developmental mission of the World Bank—that may be debatable—Paul Wolfowitz should step down. What he did wasn’t illegal, but it was certainly in poor judgment for the head of the organization, and it’s causing fallout.

  That said, I don’t think Wolfowitz will resign. The Bush people are in full turtling-up mode—see Gonzales taking a beating lately to understand this—, and I think that extends to Wolfowitz as well. Euros, you can offer all the tasty deals you want, but you’re just setting yourself up for yet another public snub, because the real issue here is admission of failure. The last six years have proven that that is just not going to happen with any facet of our executive branch. They’re weathering the storm, but as a result, so is the rest of the world.

Which Britain?

Hey readaz.

I went through a series of feelings on Iran’s catch and release of the British sailors in the Persian Gulf in the past month. At first, I wondered how Iran, which has displayed no shortage of savvy in taking advantage of its shifting regional reality, could be so unaware as to play directly into the plans of Cheney and other American planners looking for a pretext for war with Iran. Had the sailors been American, the Tomahawks would be flying within about three days. But, being sailors from America’s closest ally, it was still a possibility that the U.S. would take action on Britain’s behalf. So at first, the atmosphere was one of dread that another war was about to begin, and disbelief that Iran would be equal parts defiant and self-immolating.

But then as time went by, and the Iranians paraded their apologetic captives while the British government kept nearly silent in terms of displeasure at the situation, I worried less about war and more about how great of a propaganda victory this was going to be for the Iranians. And sure enough, Iran released the hostages with perfect timing, allowing Ahmadinejad to come out looking benevolent (even though it was likely Khamenei and Ali Larjani who pushed him into the release) and–even though they got what they wanted and avoided a broader conflict–Britain looking supplicant. With the sailors selling their stories to the Daily Mirror, there’s no shortage of criticism of their behavior. I can’t speak to that, mainly because I don’t know the full circumstances of their capture and that makes me hesitate to join in the chorus of boos. But seeing things go down as they have is still surprising in contrast to the behavior of British civilians in the July 2005 London bombings.

After that terrorist attack, British stiff-upper-lipism was in full swing. Workers and residents wasted no time going back to their daily routine, very publicly demonstrating their resolve not to bow to those who would call for Britain’s destruction. One of TIME’s cover subjects from that attack stopped by the office in New York, and he was the most chilled-out guy, both in general and about what had happened and how he had helped the injured woman through the whole ordeal.

It’s some weird stuff here to see expected societal roles turned on end, in this case the civilians playing stoic in contrast to the anxiety-ridden military. I give credit to Britain for avoiding a wider war, but I don’t think this is the public image they wanted to present, nor does it fit in with how they’ve reacted recently on the world stage.